Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comment by Peter Ellis

This page has been established on Alan Jones' 62nd birthday. :-) Sources include his 2GB biography and an Australian Broadcasting Corporation analysis of his career. Peter Ellis 03:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear this man is homophobic?

The anon who has been vandalising this page also created a vandalised clone, Alan Jones (Sydney Radio) and redirected other articles' links there - I guess he got tired of being reverted here. I've pointed those links back here, but might be worth keeping an eye on. --Calair 5 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

I have unprotected this page, since it has been protected for several weeks now, which seems a bit extreme for dealing with anon vandalism (especially since there was no protected message nor explanation on this talk page). I have added the article to my watchlist and will keep an eye out for any further vandalism. —Stormie 04:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sydney race riots

Come now, 165.228.129.12, his urging of residents to protest is fact not opinion. Kewpid 03:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia RL project

Hello

I've added an information box at the bottom as part of the Wiki RL project. Would anybody here know, by chance, who succeeded Jones after he was dismissed from the Tigers in 1993? I've put down Pearce for 1994 but I know (at least, I think I do) that he wasn't appointed straight away. Any help would be great. Cheers

Yes, it was Wayne Pearce according to http://www.nswrl.com.au/index.cgi?sID=35&det=1&intArticleID=7: "Junior took over from Alan Jones as Balmain coach in 1994 but with only a handful of top players they finished with the wooden spoon in his first year." Msmyrk 12:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Cronulla race riots

Melbourne's Fairfax broadsheet newspaper The Age subsequently denounced Jones' remarks on his breakfast radio programme as inflammatory, possibly seditious, and largely responsible for those riots. The reference offered doesn't actually support that - for instance, the word 'sedition' appears nowhere in the article. I'd have deleted the unsupported bits, but I seem to recall articles that *did* make such judgements on Jones; perhaps somebody could dig them up and add them here? --Calair 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed characterisation of the Age's coverage, since no response to the above, but left the actual article link. --Calair 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

220.239.4.237 recently removed this paragraph ("removing subjective opinion that Jones urged on violence in cronulla"):

"In December 2005, in the lead-up to the Cronulla riots, Jones used his breakfast radio programme to read out a widely-circulated text message calling on people to "Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge... get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day". While telling listeners not to take the law into their own hands, he also gave lengthy and sympathetic coverage to callers urging violence and vigilante action and called for a "community show of force".[1]."

After I reverted, s/he then re-deleted this sentence ("opinion - suggesting he gave more sympathetic coverage to those who urged violence"): "While telling listeners not to take the law into their own hands, he also gave lengthy and sympathetic coverage to callers urging violence and vigilante action and called for a "community show of force".[2]."

The Age article linked in that sentence quotes Jones as calling for "a rally, a street march, call it what you will. A community show of force." It also reports an exchange between Jones and a caller:

When John called on Tuesday to bluntly recommend vigilante action — "If the police can't do the job, the next tier is us" — Jones did not dissent. "Yeh. Good on you, John." And when he then offered a maxim his father had picked up during the war — "Shoot one, the rest will run" — the broadcaster roared with laughter. "No, you don't play Queensberry's rules. Good on you, John."

If Jones has denied this reported exchange, that dispute would certainly be worth acknowledging in the article. If his remarks have been taken out of context, he certainly has the wherewithal to make a full transcript available. But if he hasn't disputed that representation, it's hardly 'opinion' to characterise folk like John as 'urging violence and vigilante action' or Jones' repeated "Good on you"s as 'sympathetic'. --Calair 10:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure if you've ever read a real encyclopaedia, Calais, but your entry is overtly opinionated and destroys any neutrality that section had. It's a loaded quote, and it's objectionable, even from David Marr's piece, that the "good on you" was in direct reference to the condoning of 'wog' bashing. Your insertion of the quote further implied there was a direct correlation, and if one wanted to be equally as fanciful, they could insert the other piece from Marr's article, unqualified, by suggesting that he responded to said callers by saying "No" - and this if anything, was the part of the quote that was linked to the caller, not merely the concluding goodbyes.

Note these two exchanges, as reported by Marr:

John: "If the police can't do the job, the next tier is us"

AJ: "Yeh. Good on you, John.

...

John: "Shoot one, the rest will run."

AJ: "No, you don't play Queensberry's rules. Good on you, John."

If Marr's representation of those exchanges is disputed by Jones or anybody else at 2UE, that should certainly be acknowledged in the article. (Marr's account was run fairly widely, IIRC, so presumably Jones is aware of it.)

If that representation is not in dispute, then I don't think it's POV-pushing to point out that Jones responded "Good on you" to a call for vigilantism and again to a call for violence; if that's a loaded quote, it's because Jones himself loaded it. But I'll throw this over to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and see if other editors have anything to say. --Calair 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that we may be engaging in original research. We shouldn't be interpreting what he says, but instead citing those who characterize it as condoning (or not) violence. Andjam 13:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced there's a real question of interpretation here - it's hard to see how those responses can be taken as anything other than approving, IMHO - but I've converted it to a "Marr accused Jones of..." format. Does that look better? --Calair 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm dubious that he was approving (you can ask me on my talk page about why I'm dubious), but the current version, which describes rather than accuses, is reasonably NPOV. Andjam 10:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To assume that Jones approved the riots is far fetched at best, particularly if you are only going by the small excerpts provided by David Marr. The edit is an improvement on what was there before, as it encourages the reader to make up their own mind, rather than be persuaded by your interpretation of his intentions.

To interpret that as Jones approving the riots would indeed be stretching it, since they hadn't yet happened. Construing it as Jones approving of the comments is rather less of a stretch. But if you're happy with the current version on the article page, I'm happy. --Calair 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

General rule of thumb, Calair. A person reading a proper encyclopaedia excerpt should be unable to tell which side of the fence the author stands. With your edits, it was obvious that you are indeed a critic of Alan Jones' comments, even though you claim you were directly quoting a media analyst (and also drawing conclusions from said quotes) and therefore it was poor editing. However, what is up there now looks far more professional.

Anybody who edits on Wikipedia for any length of time gets used to accusations of bias. Since I started, it's been equally 'obvious' to other editors that I'm a shill for the LASIK industry, a proponent of anti-Catholic conspiracy theories, and all sorts of other things which, alas, are far more exciting than the truth. As long as at least half those guesses at my position are wrong - which, so far, they have been, even though there are some pretty big hints on my userpage and contributions log - I'll take that as evidence that I'm doing a reasonably even-handed job :-)

I'll offer some Wiki-specific advice in return:

• As per NPOV, specifically NPOV#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, wholesale deletion of a section you dislike is not a good way to make a first impression. Rewrite it to remove the POV without removing the information - the old version may have over-interpreted Jones' remarks, but the issue was certainly newsworthy enough that it should be mentioned here. Or flag the section with an appropriate template and explain concerns on the talk page, if you don't want to rewrite.

• Speaking of unprofessionality, sniping at other editors ("Not quite sure if you've ever read a real encyclopaedia") would be it. See Wikipedia: No personal attacks for discussion on why this is a bad thing. The short version is that articles are created by consensus, and consensus is easiest to achieve when people are in a cooperative frame of mind.

• Sign posts on talk pages; it makes it a lot easier to follow discussions. --Calair 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Jones and Methadone

Does anyone know what Jones' attitude towards methadone treatment is? Sarah.

Opposed. See cached copy of 15/9/2004 editorial here: "Harm minimisation is a policy, if you could call it that, where we just give in to the drug scourge and say well let's try to minimise the harm caused by drugs... Surely if we are losing nearly 8,000 Australians from drug related deaths in a little over four years, why are we giving out needles and methadone? The Federal government's committee on substance abuse said replace the methadone programs with rapid detoxification: subsidise the trials of naltrexone implants." --Calair 01:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

References

This article currently has no references. This is not good. Andjam 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Triple J tapes

Hi, I'd just like to point out that at the moment that the article refers to "tapes leaked to Triple J" as happening in the late 1990s. As far as I am aware, this occurred in either 2004 or 2005, on JJJ's 'Hack' show. They were dubbed "The Closet Recordings of Alan Jones" and featured plenty of swearing by complaints by Jones, included his constant frustration with 'fucking dust in the studio'. So, unless anyone is aware of other tapes that were leaked in the late 90s, this date should be changed. Stuart mcmillen 01:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tidying

In 1990-1993 and 1995-1997 Jones was awarded, by the radio industry, the title Australian Radio Talk Personality of the Year. That's verbatim from his website bio, but 'the radio industry' could do with explanation - presumably this refers to some specific industry body?

I reworded some material about other people involved with the show, but I'm not sure this is really notable; if it is, it should probably go to a separate section on the show's format rather than sitting in a chronology. --Calair 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Snowy Mountains phone-poll

Is the Snowy Mountains Scheme sale phone-poll notable enough to warrant inclusion? A phone-poll on a talk back radio show seems pretty ordinary. Ashmoo 02:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Calair 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagee. the anecdote illustrates Jones's methodology Albatross2147 11:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Today tonight story

anyone who shows up here, today tonight just ran a story on Alan jones. they identified that the majority of Alan Jones listeners are A)liberal, b)religeous, c)zombies who do anything he says. I know that they were probably just trying to knock down CH9, but i think i'll track down the video and add it as a reference. (go pies) MichaelBillington 08:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• "liberals" shome mishtake shurely Billo? You prolly means "Liberals" Albatross2147 11:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jonestown/gay claims

Article claimed: On 5th July 2006, it was suggested in Crikey that among the objections that the ABC board members had to the publication of the book was that it includes details of a number of homosexual affairs Jones has had. [3]

I removed this sentence because while the Crikey page cited does indeed discuss Jonestown, I couldn't find any mention of this particular angle. Maybe it was there before, but it doesn't seem to be there now. --Calair 11:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Jeez Cal whatever happened to "Rule 1"? Anywho I dredged up another reference Albatross2147 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rule 1? Not familiar with that one.

The new reference is better, but it still doesn't quite support the material it's attached to. Carlton is quoted as using qualifiers like "I haven't read the book but I believe it says X" and "I understand X is in the book".

This is a bit weaker than implied by the "Carlton claimed the book contained allegations of gay sex" offered by the SMH and repeated in this article. (To see why, observe that if the book turned out not to contain such allegations, Carlton could still claim those qualified statements were true - after all, they're just about what he thought was the case.)

And the previous sentence is still unsupported. It is a fact that the ABC Board decided not to publish, and Carlton certainly suggests that the book contains allegations of gay sex. But as far as the cited article goes, he does not allege that the latter was the reason for the former; he asks if it was the reason (and then immediately asks about a different possible reason), but a question is not quite the same as an allegation.

I suspect Carlton would very much like to make those allegations, but the quotes have the sound of a man who's just obtained legal advice; that 'I understand X' and 'is it perhaps because of Y?' format is standard for somebody trying to suggest such things without actually presenting them as claims of fact, which could potentially be fodder for a defamation suit. As it is, I don't think either of those two sentences are completely supported by Carlton's quotes in that article.

(It's also not clear from the article whether the sentence about allegations as to the ABC board's motivations is referring to Carlton's statements, or somebody else's; it needs clarification either way, and in the latter case a source of its own.)--Calair 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rule 1 of the "Philosophy Department at the University of Wooloomooloo" Albatross2147 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this article from the "List of GLBT people" category. If Alan Jones hasn't specifically stated in public that he belongs within this category, then it is not for us to put him in such a category based upon mere rumour and innuendo. - Mark 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why have you done this? Jones's homosexuality has been on the public record for some months and has been widely known for years. He was outed in a poster campaign in Sydney's Paddington and district some years ago when the authorities went to a great deal of trouble to remove the offending material. In recent months Andrew Marr has stated categorically in radio broadcasts that Jones is "gay" on several occassions the latest on RN Breakfast this morning. I would ask that you revert your clearly vexatious category deletion.Albatross2147 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, policy at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality says:

Inclusion [in such categories]should be justifiable by external references. (For example, even if you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion.)

It is certainly very widely rumoured that Jones is gay. (Personally, I would be astonished to discover that he wasn't.) But categorisation needs a solid citation, and I'm not sure the fact that somebody has alleged it, without any information on the basis for that allegation, is enough. (BTW, googling on '+"andrew marr" +"radio national" +"alan jones"' got no relevant hits - do you have a transcript link or something?)

But Jonestown will be out soon enough. I think it is very likely that it will be an adequate citation - if it does (as has been suggested) detail gay relationships on Jones' part, and he doesn't challenge those claims, I for one would be happy to re-add the category on the strength of it. So rather than have this argument just now, why don't we wait a few months and see whether it gets resolved for us? After all, as fascinating a subject as it may be, Jones' sexuality isn't exactly central to his role in Australian public life; it's not like this is a huge gap in the article. --Calair 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. If the knowledge that he is "gay" was widely known it would blunt some of his his attacks on the Greens for instance and make him somewhat less welcome in some Liberal party circles. It is the hypocrisy of the creature that grates. Albatross2147 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Jones ever attacked the Greens on LGBT-related issues, though? I don't follow him closely, but my impression has been that he's always been very, very quiet on the subject of homosexuality. --Calair 23:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous claims on ABC Radio National were on the Law Report, on a program involving David Marr where he and other experts debated the new national uniform Defamation Laws. Can't remember the date, but was available as a podcast. MojoTas 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Carlton's assertions are now irrelevant. Extracts, replete with claims of homosexuality, have been published in the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/alan-joness-demons/2006/10/20/1160851142104.html Harley 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the London toilet? He was hauled in by the police who found him in a London toilet. Anyway, if a Chris Masters book says he is gay, then we are allowed to say that "a Chris Masters book says he's gay".````

He was hauled in, yes. But he pleaded not guilty, and the charges were eventually dropped (due to lack of evidence IIRC) with costs awarded to Jones. --Calair 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This article neutral??

I just read this article and it seems so one sided. Has no one even bothered to mention Jones GOOD side?? His high ratings and the help he has done in the community?? 5 pages of criticism hardly rates as an accurate point of view. Disappointing.Darrenss 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Darrenss, if you want to research and find cited references to nice things about Alan Jones, then you are free to do so. However, a controversial radio presenter is always going to create controversy, especially one who has a criminal record and was found guilty by a government agency of "cash for comment".124.168.21.24 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The same "criminal record" and "questionable sexuality" has led radio ratings for 15 years, and done so much in the media as a positive. I think that deserves more space don't you? After all there is a good reason he is at the top, he knows what he is talking about and people respect him. Of course there is always controversy with public figures but that doesn't discount his worth for the community at large especially his listeners.Darrenss 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss, you make some valid comments, if you feel so strongly about the imbalance of this article there is nothing stopping you adding positive and verified info about Jones. I believe he is an ambivalent character, he has done some good things but also some quite bad. Michellecrisp 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice to see some sourced figures added to the article, to the point where it states he "achieved the largest breakfast audience and also the largest radio audience in Australia." --Stormie 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well its not like there's nothing out there to ref: http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com.au/gbi/2007/ http://www.mediaman.com.au/articles/jones1.html http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=101 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/11/1084041409363.html Honestly there are articles to quote from but just a willingness for some to make that info available. Furthermore stating AJ is a criminal is massive exaggeration. Did he go to prison for X amount of years? No. Hmmm.Darrenss 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not call 2GB (where Jones is a part owner) a totally objective reference. and media man seems to be a bit of a blog. WP:RS The criminal issue has been discussed before, he does have a criminal record http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1928912.htm (you can be a criminal and not go to jail). Michellecrisp 04:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss - as stated by numerous people, if you feel the article is lacking balance, then feel free to add your bit to it - after all, you have the references handy. I would suggest that you leave the question of his conviction (and hence 'criminality') under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 alone, or at least for another time, to avoid being caught up in a revert war.PalawanOz 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me just mention the criminal record. Its obvious that criminality is measured mostly by length of time in prison or at least minimum sentencing of each conviction. So if the man has not even gone to prison how can one justify a criminal record (one of any substancial recognition anyway) being relevant or at least including Jones to the Aussie Criminals page? Secondly while I'm at it the Jonestown scandel has gotten such a big lead in this article (way to big) as if it is all passed on as facts?? Chris Masters has his critics as well, this is just one I was reading earlier: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20717481-5003900,00.html So the article in itself as I stated before is not neutral and if a person DIDN'T know who Jones was they certainly would NOT be correctly informed from this article. And finally the article is slanderous. Material that is definately bias cannot be noted as facts. Going into details trying to insist Jones has homosexual desires and the charges against him is bordering on slander and defamation of character since it has NOT been established as fact. The reason why the charges were dropped in London is that the police (who regularly patrol the area looking for people who stay in the toilet too long) had no evidence, maybe someone should have mentioned that?? It amazes me how responsible editors allow to remain such views in this article and ignore it. Just amazing.Darrenss 06:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss, ask any lawyer, a criminal record's "severity" is not measured by the length of the sentence, sentencing is not consistent as the media always points out, for example, Matthew Newton received no jail term but had a conviction recorded, yet the media pointed out that non celebrities have received jail sentences for very similar offences. The judge in Jones cases had the discretion not to record a conviction, but the fact the judge did, he thought that was punishment enough. The fact is Jones has a criminal record, which is something asked in visa applications and immigration entry cards, that's something that has been pointed out that Jones' conviction could severely limit his overseas travel. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21594138-2702,00.html I don't know why you deny this. Michellecrisp 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss - if it was slanderous and/or defamatory, why wasn't Chris Masters sued as such? Perhaps AJ couldnt afford the lawyer? I think not... Perhaps the reason was that for it to be slander (or more correctly in this case - libel), it needs to be untrue. PalawanOz 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said PalawanOz. as my lawyer friend said the truth is an acceptable defence to defamation in Australian courts. So if the Chris Masters book contained lies, it would be easily defamatory. Given that it was a top selling hardcover book and that extracts were published in the Sydney Morning Herald a lot of people know about the more "unsavoury" aspects of Jones' life. Yes this may be potentially damaging to Jones' reputation but it's considered the truth. Michellecrisp 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Newton successfully appealed, in what this article calls "softest possible treatment" http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,10221,22092925-10229,00.html?from=public_rss I'll have to update his Wikipedia article! Michellecrisp 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it could be shown that Masters' material was false, it might take some work to establish that identifying Jones as homosexual had harmed his reputation. Homosexuality is legal in Australia, it's not a topic that Jones has ever taken a public stand on AFAICT, and the rumours about Jones were in heavy circulation long before Jonestown came out - as Masters put it, "I am hardly alone in noting that Jones appears to be homosexual". (See e.g. John Laws' rather pointed remarks about Jones and David Flint on Enough Rope a couple of years back; he makes Jonestown look friendly by comparison.) But I'm not a lawyer. --Calair 12:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So this whole article is being scoped by one book. Doesn't matter what others say? I never questioned the criminal record just the severity of it. You might as well fill the aussie criminals page full under the same criteria that Jones is placed on there by. Now my arguement that something that has not being publically acknowledged as fact (even though there is little response on Jones' part about the book) is still running the risk of being defamatory because of its contraversial nature. I'm certainly not going to spend my time argueing over it, I would expect responsible editors to do the right thing but you've all made the contraversy the MAIN feature of the article, if thats right in your eyes than its not my problem. As I said its still one sided trying to made out Jones is some kind of monster or something. None can see my point? Thanks anyway guys.Darrenss 21:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss - you have shown that you know how to edit a page by your entries here. I suggest you now "put up or shut up" - make the additions you want to make to the main page, no-one is stopping you, nor is anyone disagreeing with your right to do so, nor is anyone denying that there are probably some very good things that he has done. Oh - and as an aside... controversial does not equal defamatory.PalawanOz 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with PalawanOz, talk pages are not for general discussion on the topic but exist for improvement of the article, you just can't keep on discussing perceived faults without changing them. I think the WP:BOLD principle applies here. The whole article is not scoped from one book, that is an exaggeration, it has multiple sources, whether or not you like it, Jones has attracted negative attention from a variety of sources, dare I say, it has outweighed his "good deeds". Michellecrisp 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I haven't offended too many editors if I did I'm sorry. I'm actually strapped for time to do anything much as I'm studying I.T and need to focus my time there. For your interest I want to aviod these unpleasent encounters (especially the distraction of edit wars) anyway so I'll leave it at that for now. Maybe I might take a rain check on this article and come back to it some time in the future. Happy editing all.Darrenss 12:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss, you haven't offended me, you've made some valid points but as everyone has said, you're welcome to add "positive" info on Jones if you wish. Wikipedia relies on consensus, and it appears the consensus here is that appropriate negative material on Jones should be included. Michellecrisp 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we disputing the facts here? The Broadcast Authority's finding that Jones incited violence? Or Jones' criminal record? Is anyone disputing these facts? Or is it a case that these are unsavory facts that Jones would prefer were swept under the carpet and hidden from public knowledge? 203.217.41.202 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Page move

This page has been moved from "Alan Jones (radio)" to "Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)" as Alan Jones is not a type of radio but rather a radio broadcaster. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

David Flint

"In an appearance on the ABC's Enough Rope, John Laws accused Jones of placing pressure on Prime Minister John Howard to keep Flint as head of the ABA, made comments that many viewers took to imply a sexual relationship between Jones and Flint (see transcript), and broadly hinted that Jones was homosexual like Flint, who is openly gay." According to his page, David Flint is out now, but was he openly gay at the time of Laws' appearance on 'Rope'? My fuzzy recollection was that there were a lot of insinuations going around, particularly from Laws, but nothing definite back then. If Flint wasn't out at the time, this bit should probably be clarified. --Calair 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

useful link

Background discussion on this topic here. Tony 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Article request

Would someone please create an article for Jonestown: The Power and the Myth of Alan Jones?[4],[5],[6] Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Criminality

I am not sure that the opening line that reads "is an Australian convicted criminal" as added by 203.214.139.130 on 21 Apr is really a NPOV. Whilst it might be factually correct, I am not sure that having it as the opening sentence really reflects the main character of Jones. I suggest that it be moved further down the article PalawanOz 14:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's certainly notable enough to be discussed in the article but it doesn't belong in the first sentence. --Calair 14:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many passionate opinions about the main character of Alan Jones. Many would say this finding merely reflects what they've always thought of him. Many others would dismiss it as a "technicality" or some such. This is no place to determine his character one way or another. We have to remain neutral. However, IANAL but criminality is a very serious matter, which is why it's differentiated from misdemeanours etc. I have no idea whether, under NSW law, Jones's conviction is a criminal conviction or otherwise. But if that is the case, he could well have been sent to jail, and he has the discretion of the judge in only fining him to be thankful for. I see no reason not to state it up front. Putting it lower down could be seen as downplaying it. It's a very recent conviction, and he's appealing it, so who knows what's going to happen next. But if, in the fullness of time, he became usually referred to in the media as "convicted criminal Alan Jones" (à la convicted criminal Alan Bond/Brian Bourke ..., or convicted terrorist David Hicks), there'd be no objections to stating this fact early in the piece. Let's not be guided by the media's evolutionary processes, and stick to our own principles of objectivity. JackofOz 02:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I would have been quite happy to see Jones jailed for this (let alone for his behaviour re. the Cronulla riots). But compare to, say, Derryn Hinch, who was convicted of a similar offence and actually did go to jail for it. Some years down the track, while the incident is certainly remembered, I don't think anybody announces him as 'convicted criminal Derryn Hinch', and his Wikipedia article certainly doesn't.

As much as I dislike the fact, Jones is a very famous and important figure in Australia and 'radio broadcaster' is a much bigger part of that fame than 'convicted criminal'; even the magistrate who sentenced him described his offence as 'relatively minor'. (Which is presumably why he got off with a small fine and a good-behaviour bond - unlike Bond, Burke, or Hicks, all of whom did significant amounts of time in prison, which inevitably makes it a more significant event in their lives than this is in Jones'.) I think mentioning it in the intro section (as the current version does) is reasonable, just not in the very first sentence. --Calair 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Calair. FWIW, I would be quite happy for him to be sent to Devil's Island where he could broadcast his poisonous opinions to the monkeys and the toucans. But I didn't want to say that for fear my bias might be obvious. Wait .... what was that I was saying about being neutral?  :) JackofOz 05:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is a complete whitewash. Cleansed by the fans of Alan Jones. The guy is a convicted criminal, and now has a criminal record, as reported in all the Australian newspapers. The Wikipedia should treat Alan Jones as it does with all other Australians with Criminal status. The criminality should be listed in the opening lines. It should not be buried deep in the article or not mentioned. In previous versions of this article, the criminality was mentioned up top, along with references from Australian papers. Those who delete it are vandalising Wikipedia, and should be banned from editing this article. A fact is a fact, however unpleasant it is for some people to accept. 124.168.11.186 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jones is a convicted criminal. He's also a former teacher, a former political speechwriter, and involved in a range of charities. All of those things are worth mentioning in the article, but it doesn't follow that they belong in the first sentence.

If you Google, say, Neddy Smith, and look at the first ten non-Wikipedia articles that come up, you'll find him described as a 'gangster', 'armed robber', 'found guilty of murder', 'serving a life sentence for murder', 'criminals like Neddy Smith', and so on - every one of them makes mention of him as a criminal. Try the same thing with Alan Jones, and you will find that almost every mention of him is as a 'radio broadcaster'. Even among the unfavourable coverage - and there's plenty of that - his conviction under the Children's Act is rarely mentioned. It is not what he's famous for, and placing it in the first sentence is undue weight on it - just as it would be if we introduced Russell Crowe and Sylvester Stallone as convicted criminals, or Bill Clinton as a disbarred lawyer.

Also, please familiarise yourself with WP:NPA. Accusing people of 'vandalism' and 'whitewashing' for disagreeing with you on this sort of issue is not helpful, either to Wikipedia as a whole or to your argument. --Calair 11:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated a brief mention of Jones' criminality in the first line. Someone had deleted it. I don't mind the bulk of the criminal info being lower down the page, but it needs the briefest mention up top. My opinion is that the first line should really briefly sum up everything: Radio broadcaster, football, and criminality. These are what he is famous for. The school teacher, speech writer stuff could probably also be moved lower down the page to one of the other sections, as he was not very famous at the time for these things. 124.168.21.24 02:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

...and I've removed it again. His criminal conviction simply isn't a major part of his fame. Seriously, try Googling for material about Alan Jones; you will find that virtually all of it mentions him as a radio broadcaster, with vastly less mention of his criminal conviction. It is not what he is famous for and placing this much emphasis on it is bias. (FWIW, I say that as somebody who would have been happy to see Jones booted off the air years ago.) --Calair 02:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to violate 3RR on this, but IMHO this should not have been re-added (yet again) without, at the least, some evidence that this *is* a major part of his fame. --Calair 07:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering whether or not the sentence of "...one on-air incident resulted in Jones acquiring a criminal record, which was later quashed on appeal." is fair in the opening paragraph? Technically the fact that the judge annulled the conviction - means it didn't happen? Isn't that like calling someone a murderer even after their conviction has been annulled (i.e. non-existent)? (I don't know - just a thought?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.17.9 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree - it can be left in the main article, but should probably be removed from the opening. PalawanOz (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Category?

I reverted an edit which had removed the 'LGBT from Australia' category from this page. There does not seem much doubt surrounding Jones' sexuality, as evidenced by the lack of lawsuit against anyone who makes the claim (Jones certainly has the resources to mount as many lawsuits as he likes). PalawanOz 20:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of his sexuality is needed for the category. You'd need to find him talking about it or a partner I guess. Otherwise it should be out, pardon the pun. 59.167.84.166 05:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the evidence presented in the Jonestown book was pretty cut and dried - it has also not been disputed by Jones, nor by any of his supporters. The criticism of the book outing him revolved around it's alleged irrelavance, and not about it's accuracy. I believe this is sufficient basis to include him in the LGBT category. On a secondary note, you have changed the word 'homosexuality' to 'sexuality', when the reference article in the SMH^[1] uses the 'homosexuality' term explicity. PalawanOz 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to this edit summary: whether it's 'homophobic' to out people against their wishes is a very contentious topic. But it's not relevant here; outing people already violates WP:OR, and that's all we need to know.

OTOH, when somebody has already been outed by another source, WP is not obliged to tiptoe around that information for the sake of the subject's feelings. See e.g. Mark Foley, Roy Cohn, and Liberace. --Calair 11:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This article neutral??

I just read this article and it seems so one sided. Has no one even bothered to mention Jones GOOD side?? His high ratings and the help he has done in the community?? 5 pages of criticism hardly rates as an accurate point of view. Disappointing.Darrenss 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Darrenss, if you want to research and find cited references to nice things about Alan Jones, then you are free to do so. However, a controversial radio presenter is always going to create controversy, especially one who has a criminal record and was found guilty by a government agency of "cash for comment".124.168.21.24 00:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The same "criminal record" and "questionable sexuality" has led radio ratings for 15 years, and done so much in the media as a positive. I think that deserves more space don't you? After all there is a good reason he is at the top, he knows what he is talking about and people respect him. Of course there is always controversy with public figures but that doesn't discount his worth for the community at large especially his listeners.Darrenss 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss, you make some valid comments, if you feel so strongly about the imbalance of this article there is nothing stopping you adding positive and verified info about Jones. I believe he is an ambivalent character, he has done some good things but also some quite bad. Michellecrisp 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice to see some sourced figures added to the article, to the point where it states he "achieved the largest breakfast audience and also the largest radio audience in Australia." --Stormie 01:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well its not like there's nothing out there to ref: http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com.au/gbi/2007/ http://www.mediaman.com.au/articles/jones1.html http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=101 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/11/1084041409363.html Honestly there are articles to quote from but just a willingness for some to make that info available. Furthermore stating AJ is a criminal is massive exaggeration. Did he go to prison for X amount of years? No. Hmmm.Darrenss 03:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not call 2GB (where Jones is a part owner) a totally objective reference. and media man seems to be a bit of a blog. WP:RS The criminal issue has been discussed before, he does have a criminal record http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1928912.htm (you can be a criminal and not go to jail). Michellecrisp 04:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss - as stated by numerous people, if you feel the article is lacking balance, then feel free to add your bit to it - after all, you have the references handy. I would suggest that you leave the question of his conviction (and hence 'criminality') under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 alone, or at least for another time, to avoid being caught up in a revert war.PalawanOz 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me just mention the criminal record. Its obvious that criminality is measured mostly by length of time in prison or at least minimum sentencing of each conviction. So if the man has not even gone to prison how can one justify a criminal record (one of any substancial recognition anyway) being relevant or at least including Jones to the Aussie Criminals page? Secondly while I'm at it the Jonestown scandel has gotten such a big lead in this article (way to big) as if it is all passed on as facts?? Chris Masters has his critics as well, this is just one I was reading earlier: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20717481-5003900,00.html So the article in itself as I stated before is not neutral and if a person DIDN'T know who Jones was they certainly would NOT be correctly informed from this article. And finally the article is slanderous. Material that is definately bias cannot be noted as facts. Going into details trying to insist Jones has homosexual desires and the charges against him is bordering on slander and defamation of character since it has NOT been established as fact. The reason why the charges were dropped in London is that the police (who regularly patrol the area looking for people who stay in the toilet too long) had no evidence, maybe someone should have mentioned that?? It amazes me how responsible editors allow to remain such views in this article and ignore it. Just amazing.Darrenss 06:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss, ask any lawyer, a criminal record's "severity" is not measured by the length of the sentence, sentencing is not consistent as the media always points out, for example, Matthew Newton received no jail term but had a conviction recorded, yet the media pointed out that non celebrities have received jail sentences for very similar offences. The judge in Jones cases had the discretion not to record a conviction, but the fact the judge did, he thought that was punishment enough. The fact is Jones has a criminal record, which is something asked in visa applications and immigration entry cards, that's something that has been pointed out that Jones' conviction could severely limit his overseas travel. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21594138-2702,00.html I don't know why you deny this. Michellecrisp 07:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss - if it was slanderous and/or defamatory, why wasn't Chris Masters sued as such? Perhaps AJ couldnt afford the lawyer? I think not... Perhaps the reason was that for it to be slander (or more correctly in this case - libel), it needs to be untrue. PalawanOz 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said PalawanOz. as my lawyer friend said the truth is an acceptable defence to defamation in Australian courts. So if the Chris Masters book contained lies, it would be easily defamatory. Given that it was a top selling hardcover book and that extracts were published in the Sydney Morning Herald a lot of people know about the more "unsavoury" aspects of Jones' life. Yes this may be potentially damaging to Jones' reputation but it's considered the truth. Michellecrisp 11:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Newton successfully appealed, in what this article calls "softest possible treatment" http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,10221,22092925-10229,00.html?from=public_rss I'll have to update his Wikipedia article! Michellecrisp 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it could be shown that Masters' material was false, it might take some work to establish that identifying Jones as homosexual had harmed his reputation. Homosexuality is legal in Australia, it's not a topic that Jones has ever taken a public stand on AFAICT, and the rumours about Jones were in heavy circulation long before Jonestown came out - as Masters put it, "I am hardly alone in noting that Jones appears to be homosexual". (See e.g. John Laws' rather pointed remarks about Jones and David Flint on Enough Rope a couple of years back; he makes Jonestown look friendly by comparison.) But I'm not a lawyer. --Calair 12:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So this whole article is being scoped by one book. Doesn't matter what others say? I never questioned the criminal record just the severity of it. You might as well fill the aussie criminals page full under the same criteria that Jones is placed on there by. Now my arguement that something that has not being publically acknowledged as fact (even though there is little response on Jones' part about the book) is still running the risk of being defamatory because of its contraversial nature. I'm certainly not going to spend my time argueing over it, I would expect responsible editors to do the right thing but you've all made the contraversy the MAIN feature of the article, if thats right in your eyes than its not my problem. As I said its still one sided trying to made out Jones is some kind of monster or something. None can see my point? Thanks anyway guys.Darrenss 21:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss - you have shown that you know how to edit a page by your entries here. I suggest you now "put up or shut up" - make the additions you want to make to the main page, no-one is stopping you, nor is anyone disagreeing with your right to do so, nor is anyone denying that there are probably some very good things that he has done. Oh - and as an aside... controversial does not equal defamatory.PalawanOz 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with PalawanOz, talk pages are not for general discussion on the topic but exist for improvement of the article, you just can't keep on discussing perceived faults without changing them. I think the WP:BOLD principle applies here. The whole article is not scoped from one book, that is an exaggeration, it has multiple sources, whether or not you like it, Jones has attracted negative attention from a variety of sources, dare I say, it has outweighed his "good deeds". Michellecrisp 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope I haven't offended too many editors if I did I'm sorry. I'm actually strapped for time to do anything much as I'm studying I.T and need to focus my time there. For your interest I want to aviod these unpleasent encounters (especially the distraction of edit wars) anyway so I'll leave it at that for now. Maybe I might take a rain check on this article and come back to it some time in the future. Happy editing all.Darrenss 12:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Darrenss, you haven't offended me, you've made some valid points but as everyone has said, you're welcome to add "positive" info on Jones if you wish. Wikipedia relies on consensus, and it appears the consensus here is that appropriate negative material on Jones should be included. Michellecrisp 01:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we disputing the facts here? The Broadcast Authority's finding that Jones incited violence? Or Jones' criminal record? Is anyone disputing these facts? Or is it a case that these are unsavory facts that Jones would prefer were swept under the carpet and hidden from public knowledge? 203.217.41.202 22:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Convicted criminal' in the opening sentence

Resolved

 – --Darkwind ([[User talk:Darkwind |blp=yes|talk]]) 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Introductory_sentences, an editor has asked whether Jones should be described as a convicted criminal in the opening sentence. I argue this is inappropriate. It is yet another example of the lack of neutrality evident in the current version of the article. Whatever his faults, Jones does *not* appear to be a notorious mass murderer. It's not appropriate for Wikipedia to vividly highlight his violations of law while the various newspapers that are cited in the article don't use such strong language in writing about him.

One idea is for User:Calair to try to redraft the opening sentence on the Talk page and get some reactions from the other editors. It does seem that Jones' apparent history of scrapes with authority throughout his career should be properly acknowledged in the lead, but better wording can surely be found. Other reasonably-balanced secondary sources may have written about him, and we can get ideas for how they have chosen to weight his misadventures.EdJohnston 03:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought this version handled it reasonably - presenting the conviction in the introduction, just not as the first sentence. Putting it into context as part of a long history of scrapes would be even better. It would probably be good to mention his rugby career in the first sentence as well, but I'm less fussed about that. How about something like this?

"Alan Belford Jones AO (born 13 April 1941 or 1943) is an Australian radio broadcaster, former rugby union and rugby league coach and administrator. He hosts the largest breakfast radio audience in Australia (insert cite) but his on-air conduct has often drawn criticism from regulatory authorities and media commentators." --Calair 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like that would do the job, yes. We don't have to shy away from reporting the facts (neutrally, honestly, and with due weight), provided we have citations.

Listing this person as a "rugby league coach and administrator, and convicted criminal" gives the impression that he is some sort of career criminal. That is biased and in contravention of the living persons biography policy. I will not hesitate to block anybody who breaches that policy, and they may not expect any other warning. --kingboyk 12:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC here; I had never heard of Alan Jones before. If Calair's statement is factually accurate, I believe it would be a fair, neutral and appropriate lead sentence. Nicely written. VisitorTalk 22:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Jones is not a "notorious mass murderer". But we never said that. We said he has a criminal conviction. That is the most neutral way of saying it, as it is a statement of fact. >>Click HERE for SMH story<< People are afraid of the term, but it was applied by a court of law. To call it something else is not neutral (in Jones' favour). Other people in Wikipedia have their criminal records up the top. Politicians, entertainers and others with criminal records all have it at the top of their pages. Why should we treat Alan Jones differently? Why should we treat him with kid gloves? Wikipedia should not be shy of stating the facts 203.217.41.202 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, people with criminal records do NOT "all have it at the top of their pages". Go have a look at Sylvester Stallone (importing growth hormone), Russell Crowe (assault), Robert Downey Jr. (repeated drug offences), Snoop Doggy Dogg (guns and drugs), and Paris Hilton (if anybody's escaped the coverage, I'm not going to add to it), and there are plenty more where those came from. Even some folk with very serious convictions don't have those listed in the intro sentence - for example, Nelson Mandela (sabotage and various other offences), Vince Neil (vehicular manslaughter), Charles S. Dutton (manslaughter in a street fight), and Gary Glitter (child sex offences).

In some cases (e.g. Glitter, Downey) those offences are noted a bit further down in the intro, because it's a moderately important part of their fame. In others, it's far less prominent. The intro sentence is not for chronicling all the events of their lives, but explaining why they are notable. Neil and Dutton killed people, but it's not what they're famous for. Alan Jones broke the law, but it's not what he's famous for. And in Mandela's case, although his ANC activity (even the 'criminal' elements) is a major part of his fame, focusing on the criminal aspect gives a distorted and misleading picture.

"That is the most neutral way of saying it, as it is a statement of fact" - non sequitur. Perhaps an example might help illustrate why 'statements of fact' aren't automatically neutral:

"You are an anonymous editor. Many Wikipedia editors view anons with suspicion, because trolls who want to make disruptive edits and/or push their own agenda (especially if they have some vested interest in the article subject) often use anonymous editing to avoid accountability." All this is fact, but presented like that it's not exactly neutral.

Placing undue weight, even on things that are true, constitutes bias. The first sentence of an article carries far more weight than later parts of the article - and you know this, or you wouldn't keep trying to re-add something there that's already heavily covered later in the article.

In my opinion, titling the section on his breach of the Children's Act also smacks of POV-pushing. If he had multiple convictions, 'Criminal record' would be a good title for it. When he has only one conviction, it's better to be specific about what the offence was... unless the agenda is to make him out as a career criminal. --Calair 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calair. In a court of law, the judge has the discretion to fine a person, imprison a person, or convict the person as a criminal (ie, a criminal record). I haven't researched the celebrities you cite, but my understanding of the Russell Crowe and Sylvester Stallone cases is that a criminal conviction was not recorded, even though they both pleaded guilty and were both fined. The judge was pretty harsh on Alan Jones. She gave him a trivial fine, but recorded a criminal conviction. The other people on your list, I'm not sure if they've got criminal records (eg Paris Hilton). They may do. Gary Glitter has his listed on the second sentence of his Wiki page. The Australian convicted criminals usually get given that "Australian Criminals" graphical infobox. Alan Jones is one of the few that doesn't have one of those Convicted Criminal info-boxes on his page, so I think he's got off very lightly in Wikipedia. 203.217.41.202 10:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law, nor is this the tabloid press. This is Wikipedia, where we strive to be neutral and balanced, and where we have a very strict policy about the biographies of living persons. I am an administrator here; I have never heard of Mr Jones before and have no preconceptions about him; I am telling you that over-emphasising this person's "criminality" is not acceptable at this site, and if you insist on doing it the article will be protected so that only established editors may edit it and you personally (or your IP address) will be blocked from editing.

Please work with Calair to get this material presented in a fair and neutral way. If this has been all over the newspapers in Aus it's quite right that we report it, and that gives you plenty of sources to cite, but you must not give the impression that a minor conviction defines his public profile unless that it absolutely and demonstrably true.--kingboyk 11:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody who pleads guilty to an offence has been convicted; sometimes that conviction is not placed on record, but it's a conviction nevertheless. You can't be sentenced (as all the people I listed have been) without first being convicted. As you note, even in the case of Gary Glitter - somebody whose musical career is well into 'Where Are They Now?' territory, and who is serving time for a very serious offence - his criminal record isn't quite a big enough part of his notability to make it into the opening sentence. Dutton served several years for fatally stabbing a man; is anybody seriously suggesting that the judge chose not to record a conviction in such a case?

The first sentence is for names, titles, dates, and what the person is notable for. A criminal conviction is not automatically notable - there are millions of convicted criminals out there without their own Wikipedia pages - and nobody has even attempted to provide evidence that Jones' breach of the law is a major part of his notability. --Calair 17:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Calair said, Somebody who pleads guilty to an offence has been convicted. Not so. A criminal record is a different thing to pleading guilty, it holds a terrible stigma, it is only applied for serious crime, and anyone who has one has more difficulty travelling overseas. Normal persons can just get off the plane in the USA without a prior visa. However, those with criminal records must apply for a special visa and have it approved. Alan Jones will be subject to this. He may be granted entry to the US, but the process is made a lot more difficult for him. I don't think it's necessary to cite a US government website about visa entry, as it is a known fact and was already cited in the SMH. It's not a journalist's personal opinion, as was added to one version of the Wiki article. The judge at Jones' trial called his actions a "serious" criminal offence. As such, a brief mention needs to be added somewhere to the first section of the article. After the judge's verdict, it's not for us to brush it under the carpet and say it wasn't a serious offence. 203.217.41.202 12:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, you are confusing "convicted" and "criminal record" there - the statement you're responding to was about people who have been convicted.

As for the question of travel, I point you at Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation".

If you need it made explicit, I will do so: I am challenging the material, therefore it requires a cite. I am not disputing the fact that a criminal record can make it difficult for people to enter the USA; I am questioning the assumption that it will do so in Jones' case. It's hardly a secret that money and connections bypass a lot of obstacles[7], and Jones has plenty of both. Statements about how the law is likely to be applied are interpretations, and need to be attributed to a cited source so readers can best judge their value. There is also a question of the relevance of the information - how often does Jones travel to the USA anyway?

You seem to have a fixation on turning this into an article about Jones' criminal record (it now attaches the word 'criminal' to him no less than five times, most of those coming directly from your edits). But the only thing you're hurting is Wikipedia. A casual reader who looks at media coverage of Jones' conviction and then compares it with the emphasis given to it in this article isn't going to conclude that it's the most important thing in his life; they're going to conclude that this article is an obsessive hatchet piece, and take it all - including the material on 'cash for comment', the Cronulla riots, and other good reasons to dislike Jones - with a very large pinch of salt. --Calair 02:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Calair. If you or I travel to the USA, we don't require a visa. We can just get on a plane and go there without prior arrangement. They call this the Visa Waiver Program (VWP). However, for any person with a criminal record, no matter who they are, they can't use the VWP. Instead, they must apply for a visa before they go, and declare the criminal record. The US authorities then make a decision about whether or not that person is granted entry to the USA. So, if Jones applies, he may be granted entry. But at the very least, he no longer has automatic visa-free entry to the USA, and there is now paperwork and red tape if he wants to travel there. Here's a US government link about it [8]. I haven't put this link in the article citations, because it already has an SMH citation, but it is just for you to see. We haven't said that he can't go the USA. We've just reproduced the newspaper story that the criminal record "may make it more difficult for him to travel" to the USA and other countries with similar requirements. A criminal record really doesn't make it easy to travel anywhere. Regarding your comment that the article sections on Criminal Record, Cash for Comment, and Cronulla riots don't make good reasons to like Jones, there incidents are all very factual and easily verified. All of them are adverse findings from government authorities. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of any individual who's had so many adverse findings made about them. But because they are official findings, they must be included in the Wiki article. If you go to the Alan Jones page on the 2GB website you will find only positive statements, and no mention of any adverse findings. Because the Criminal Record is the most serious of the adverse findings, I personally believe that section should be higher up in the article, rather than very last, but I will leave it where it is. 203.217.41.202 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with uncited "well known facts is that very often they're wrong. In this case, you are misinformed as to the conditions on the VWP - let's take a closer look at how it works.

US Customs & Border Protection article: Overview of the Visa Waiver Program. The relevant bit is this requirement: "Convince the examining CBP officer that you are clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted and that you are not inadmissible under section 212 of the Act. For reasons that would make you inadmissible, please see the Immigration and Nationality Act at INA § 212 (a)."

You can view section 212 of the INA here. It outlines various classes of aliens who are not (usually) eligible for US visas. The relevant part is this: "Criminal and related grounds.- (A) Conviction of certain crimes.- (i) In general.-Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of-(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime), or (II) [snipped - drugs, not relevant here], is inadmissible. (ii) Exception.-Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if-(I) [snipped - minors, not relevant here] or (II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed). (B) <nowiki>[snipped - multiple convictions totalling 5-year sentences or more, not relevant here]..."

'Crime involving moral turpitude' is a legal term with a specific meaning, and Jones' offence doesn't fit that description. Even if it did, the maximum sentence for breaching that portion of the Children's Act is twelve monthshere and Jones wasn't sentenced to prison, so he gets through under 2.A.ii.II.

So if Alan Jones wants to travel to the USA, he does exactly the same thing you would: he packs his Australian passport, hops on a plane, and fills out his I-94W to qualify for the VWP. When he gets to the question that asks whether he's ever been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, he answers 'no', and goes on to the next question. No extra 'paperwork' or 'red tape' whatsoever.

If Geesche Jacobsen believes otherwise, she's entitled to publish that belief. But Wikipedia should not present an Australian journalist's understanding of US law as a general belief; that statement should be clearly identified as a specific person's interpretation, not "it is believed that..." - because not everybody does believe any such thing.

"Regarding your comment that the article sections on Criminal Record, Cash for Comment, and Cronulla riots don't make good reasons to like Jones, there incidents are all very factual and easily verified." You have misread; I am not complaining about the cash-for-comment/Cronulla sections of the article; in fact, if you look at the article's history you'll see that I substantially expanded the section on the Cronulla riots. My complaint here is that by fixating on using the word 'criminal' everywhere you can possibly squeeze it in, you damage the entire article, those bits included. A fair discussion of Jones' misdeeds is far more effective than jumping up and down yelling 'criminal criminal criminal!'. --Calair 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 2 different issues here. First, being allowed to travel visa-free, and second, being eligible/ineligible for visa entry. Two different things. Those with criminal records don't pass the first criteria, but may pass the second and gain entry. A lot of those definitions in the above links refer to who is eligible for a visa (rather than who is eligible for the VWP).

Alan Jones would be ineligible for the US Visa Waiver Program. He'd have to apply for a visa. After that, he may be granted entry to the US. The US Embassy in London has an online "Wizard" to see if you are eligible for the Visa Waiver Program. [9] Try it. Pretend you are Alan Jones, with a recent/modern passport, and see if you are eligible. Also, check the US embassy's text about who can travel under the VWP. [10] Do a word search for "important" and read the text there.

When travelling, the exact question Jones would have to answer is this.. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any reason in any country, even if the arrest did not lead to a conviction, or do you have a criminal record? If the answer is Yes, then a full visa must be applied for. After that, those definitions you quoted become valid.

So, the journalist in the SMH story about Jones said that world travel will become more difficult for him as a result of the criminal record. You could use the argument that this information is too trivial for Wikipedia, but you could not refute the fact that world travel will become more difficult for him. Cheers. 203.217.41.202 01:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"A lot of those definitions in the above links refer to who is eligible for a visa (rather than who is eligible for the VWP)." Incorrect. While S212 is indeed written to cover visas in general, the visa waiver program specifically refers back to S212 for parts of its own eligibility criteria, including criminal record. See the above quote from C&BP's summary of the VWP, which specifically references S212.

"When travelling, the exact question Jones would have to answer is this.. Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any reason in any country, even if the arrest did not lead to a conviction, or do you have a criminal record?" - no, it is not. The form he would fill out when attempting to enter under the VWP is the I-94W. You can see a copy of it here, and the question specifically asks about 'moral turpitude'. US government forms are fairly easy to find online; if you think there's some other version of the VWP, you should have no problem digging up the official form with the exact wording that you used above. Otherwise, please stop presenting guesses as fact.

It's funny that you should bring up the London embassy, because Wikipedia's entry on moral turpitude - which I pointed you to yesterday, and I presume you've read - specifically mentions that website as a misleading one that fails to acknowledge the moral turpitude issue. So the fact that you then chose to use that particular one as an example, out of all the US embassy websites in the world, does not bespeak good faith on your part.

Looking at one of the other websites - the embassy in Australia seems like a good place to start, don't you think? - "A previous arrest or conviction will affect your entry into the United States. In most cases, it makes you ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program... Anyone convicted of, or punished for, a crime involving moral turpitude, regardless of how long ago, whether it was recorded, or whether the record has now been expunged, is ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program and must apply for a visa. If there is any doubt regarding the nature of the offense, it is advisable to apply for a visa."

It's easy enough to see how a non-lawyer trying to keep the UK embassy's web content simple might err on the side of caution and tell people that anyone with a criminal record needs to apply for a visa. The full law is complicated, and if somebody tries to figure it out, gets it wrong, and tries to enter on the VWP when they're not eligible, that's a headache; far simpler to tell them "if in doubt, get a visa". But it's very hard to see why the Australian embassy's website would specify 'moral turpitude' in connection with the VWP if, as you claim, it wasn't relevant.

To summarise: Customs & Border Patrol (who are the people who actually process the VWP) say that S212 is what counts, and S212 specifies moral turpitude (and also excludes offences with short sentences - Jones falls into this category as well). The Australian embassy acknowledges that 'most' (i.e. not all) arrests/convictions make people ineligible for the VWP, and goes on to specifically mention moral turpitude. And the I-94W, the form you fill out when trying to enter the country under the VWP, specifically refers to crimes involving moral turpitude - there is no general 'criminal record' question on that form.

This may not be enough to convince you that moral turpitude is a relevant element, but it's certainly enough to establish that the matter is doubtful, and therefore the opinion needs proper attribution. I'm going to re-add that attribution, and I will report any further removal of that attribution as violation of WP:VERIFY; you have been warned. --Calair 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment this is essentially a dispute between 2 editors and really it is taking up a lot of talk space with no clear resolution. May I suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Third opinion Michellecrisp 05:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I'm sorry it's dragged on so long. I posted a sanity-check request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography four days ago (which did at least settle the issue of the opening sentence), and another one yesterday on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, but that doesn't seem to have drawn any response. I'll try on RFC/BIO next. --Calair 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Calair. I read your comment that the Criminality should be given less prominence. It's already the last item in the article. It's a bit hard to give it less prominence. Most other Australians with criminal records have their criminality given much more prominence than Alan Jones does in this article. The other issue, of the line taken from The Sydney Morning Herald news item on the issue, that a crim record makes overseas travel more difficult (the US was one example), I still feel was valid, but I haven not restored it after the line was changed, then deleted. Cheers 203.217.41.202 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of image with amusing words

Folks, can we please have a discussion on here re the use of the somewhat amusing, but vaguely negative image of Jones standing in front of a sign saying "Count" (where he is blocking one letter)... no need for an edit war on this one... My view - it's a laugh, but not appropriate as it is somewhat biased. PalawanOz 08:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The image looks to me to be a copyright violation and has been listed at WP:PUI. I think it will likely be deleted in a few days, which should resolve the issue. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This one probably will, yes - but this image pops up fairly regularly I have noticed (under various names) - so the question really applies to other variants of this image PalawanOz 14:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just flag them as copyvio whenever they pop up - if the same uploader is adding them, report them WP:AIV for uploads of copyright violations, which is blockable behavior. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I laughed the first time somebody sent it to me (it's been circulating for years), and I applaud the cunning of the photographer who lined up that shot in the first place, but it's a bit puerile for Wikipedia. In any case, copyvio settles the issue; it's obviously a scan (probably from a newspaper) rather than an original, which makes it very unlikely that a Wikipedia editor has permission to release it. --Calair 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• sigh*.... it's back PalawanOz (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Criminality verdict soon

It's February. I believe a verdict will be reached some time this month as to whether Alan Jones retains his criminal status, or if his appeal is successful and he gets it overturned. Keep an eye on the news this month regarding this one. Lester 11:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Verdict just handed down. Jones loses his appeal, and his criminal record stays. The comment from his lawyer that Jones will appeal the fine of $1000 seems trivial, considering that amount of money is trivial money to Jones, and I wonder if the monetary appeal is even worthy of inclusion in the article. It may have just been saving face by lawyers. What would sting Jones is not the fine, but the conviction. Lester 00:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And now the SMH reports that the conviction has been quashed, apparently by the same judge who upheld it in February. I'm confused. --144.53.251.2 (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is unusual. I will add the 'quashing' to the article.Lester 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Criminal Infobox

I notice someone else recently added the criminal tag which produces a Criminal Infobox on the right of page >>Diff<<. At first I thought it was a bit harsh. However, this tag exists on most other Australians who have a wiki article + a criminal record. Alan Jones has a criminal record. Is there any reason why Alan Jones should not have such an infobox? Lester 01:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

While I recognise of most of these events WP:BLP require them to be supported with reliable sources, Gnangarra 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Some referenes that may assist with details about Alan Jones: ABC Four Corners chronology and SMH feature. Lester 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi, I don't know how to reinstate an older version - help very much appreciated. I am sure Alan Jones did not set up a brothell in Uganda... and other little strange things. Thanks, schomynv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.58.232 (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

removed clause. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on Prime Minister Julia Gillard

I believe the chaff bag controversy needs to go in, especially as Alan Jones added to it yesterday. It's a significant part of Australian history for women at least.

Here is Alan yesterday on women (citing PM & Lord Mayor) "destroying the joint": http://www.news.com.au/national/alan-jones-women-are-destroying-the-joint/story-fndo4eg9-1226462326339?fb_action_ids=10151064315864915&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

His initial comments on Julia Gillard chaff bags and the sea go back to the 29th June 2011 and they are missing.

Here is Anne Summers yesterday on sex discrimination of the prime minister: http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/conspiracy-of-silence-lets-persecution-of-pm-fester-20120831-255tt.html

This man is repeatedly misogynistic, it is part of his character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.134.110 (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Broadcasting bigotry is what he gets paid for. It's hard to believe that any rational adult could truly believe the tripe he presents, so whether he's truly misogynistic is hard to tell. I'm always reluctant to give bullshit material like that more "airplay". What we could report is a description of his behaviour plus commentary from a reliable source, such as Mediawatch, if such commentary existed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Media Watch stories on chaff bag - www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3551607.htm, www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3272172.htm 59.167.126.21 (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Comments

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

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

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

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

When Andrew Bolt says that Alan Jones has gone too far, you know things are bad. [11]. -- Chuq (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 1 October 2012

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

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

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

Revisiting neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close paraphrasing

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

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

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

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

Current photo Alan Jones from the musical Annie in infobox

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

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

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

Here are a couple of images on Flickr which are creative commons, Alan Jones at Hanson book launch [12] and Alan Jones after Bowral Coal Seam Gas rally [13]. Neither of those is defamatory or misleading. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Died of Shame controversy" - MOS

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

 Done

Analysis of Apology

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

The problems with this are;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bias in heading "Criticisms of the Left in Australia"

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

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

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

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

The section is a subsection of

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

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

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

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

ACMA ordered Jones to comment on evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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