Jump to content

Talk:Belinda Neal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy

[edit]

Moving text to here so discussion can be had:

In June, 2008, Neal and Della Bosca were dining in Iguana's, a licensed venue in Gosford, NSW, when an argument erupted over a request for them to move to an outside table. Neal, it was alleged, threatened to have the premises closed and to organise to have police attend regularly as a result of her disappointment with the service. It was said that the request to move was one made of all patrons, so that a dance floor could be used. [1] Mr Golla said Ms Neal followed him to the club's cash office, a restricted area, and began screaming at him when he asked to her wait outside.
"Ms Neal replied: 'I will have your f****** licence, he said.
"You will not be trading in three months time. What's your f****** name? I will have your job as well. I will have the f****** police down here every weekend to close you down.
Mr Golla said he ordered Ms Neal to leave the premises or he would contact the police.
He said this resulted in Mr Della Bosca entering the argument.
"Mr Della Bosca approached in an aggressive manner, pointing his finger in my face, Mr Golla said. "Mr Della Bosca said words to the effect of: `You don't want to call the police'.
Mr Golla said Ms Neal yelled: "Don't you know who I am?
This unsavoury incident came within a fortnight after Neal was caused to apologise to a Federal Liberal Member of Parliament, Sophie Mirabella, over a partially disputed comment by Neal to the effect that Mirabella's unborn child would be born "a demon" as a result of "impure thoughts". According to Mr Golla's statutory declaration, Ms Neal informed him that his staff were rude and needed to be sacked.

And where are the sources for these claims exactly? There is 1 source relating to the issue and doesnt contain most of this. Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above has been reported in the press, but this is way, way undue weight. I'd say it does warrant mention in a sentence or two though: there's still reports in today's press that the incident could have unsavory consequences for Della Bosca, I doubt it helps Neal's chances of re-election any, and I dare say it's probably the first time she's made the front page of the Sydney press. Rebecca (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My issue here however is an entire defamatory conversation is on wikipedia without a citation. At the least, it needs a cite, at the most, it needs a re-write. But again agreed, noteworthy. Timeshift (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new changes look pretty good to me. Rebecca (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Timeshift (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be unwise to call this "defamatory" when four witnesses have signed statutory declarations corraborating this version of events. Kransky (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They would be the statutory declarations witnessed by a Liberal Party staffer, given to the Sunday Telegraph by the same Liberal staffer and withdrawn by the restaurant management? WWGB (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only the statutory declarations by the manager and one other worker have not been withdrawn - and irrespective who witnessed them they still carry the same legal weight. Kransky (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just had a look at this article after recent press today about her. This really has been whitewashed big time. This needs to be put back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.161.195 (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't contain a blow by blow tabloid unverifiable account which has questionable WP:RS. It also shouldn't contain repeated "f******"'s. A summary of the incident is all that is needed. Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, that's no even close to a summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.161.195 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source says "The management of a Gosford nightclub has retracted all staff statements in an apology to a NSW minister and his federal MP wife, denying the couple were abusive and threatening during an altercation on Friday night." If there's no source for the alleged repeated "f******"'s, they can't appear in the article anyway. They can't stay on this talk page either. - Pointillist (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a good source, but I'm concerned that whitewashing is going on here. This incident is the major incident in Neal's career and it should be given due prominence. --Pete (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't personally know my way around the Australian media but if it is a major incident it shouldn't be hard to find a couple of reliable sources. - Pointillist (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Della Bosca must be sacked: Opposition". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2008-06-08. Retrieved 2008-06-08.

Telegraph preselection claim

[edit]

The following sentence has been proposed for inclusion, but presents a problem:

"Her political career will be over at the next election as the Labor party has refused to preselect her." (sourced from [1])

The problem is the journalist states unequivocally that the ALP will not preselect Neal in 2010, but then doesn't back the claim with anything other than a single sentence from a "well-placed source". Far be it for me to impugn the accuracy of Daily Telegraph reporting, but if the ALP had made a decision on the Robertson preselection in 2010 there would surely be a statement attributable to the ALP on which to base it. The story would also have received wider coverage than this one line of anonymous speculation in a single newspaper article. A check of the ALP state and Federal websites makes clear no preselections have been conducted or contemplated for the 2010 election.

Inclusion of this claim in the article would in my opinion place undue weight on the views of an anonymous comment in a single line of a newspaper article about a decision that no official source supports. Given this is an encyclopedia article and not a blog, I'd suggest we let the dust settle a touch before rushing to include this claim. Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its worthy as senior party figures often leak anonymously to the media. I think it should be "some commentators believe etc" Timeshift (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, though the commentator doesn't offer it as her opinion but that of "anonymous". To be 100% accurate we could say "On July 4, 2008 an anonymous source stated Neal would not receive Labor Party preselection for the 2010 election."
If the preselection claim has validity I suspect it will be repeated in further stories and possibly via confirmation from the ALP. We might comfortably park this issue here for a couple of days and see whether there's further backing for the claim. Euryalus (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add journalists/commentators to the anonymous source bit. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ALP has refuted the speculation. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much for the anonymous source. Thanks, that seems to resolve the issue. Euryalus (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nelson incident - is it really noteable?

[edit]
"She asked Dr Nelson if he had received a letter from her," Ms Bishop said yesterday.
"He said that he had not. She said, 'You have got a letter from me - I'm demanding an apology for what you said about me'.
"She was menacing in her tone, she was walking very close to Dr Nelson, so I moved out into the aisle to stand between them."

Sounds like Bishop and Nelson need a tissue if you ask me, it is a complete storm in a teacup. Note how it happened a week ago but Bishop only brought it to light upon Neal being cleared of any wrongdoing? Timeshift (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mush as I dislike Belinda Neal all the above is just an allegation with no proof other then Bishop and Nelson, therefore shouldn't be in this article. If it did happen someone on that flight would have leaked it to the media by now. Bidgee (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable IMO. Two pollies from different parties had a blue. Big deal. --Surturz (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree as well. Bishop says Neal was vaguely "menacing", Neal says she wasn't, Nelson says nothing. Wikipedia articles are not an indiscriminate mass of information, and inclusion of this kind of minor one-day wonder of a story gives it undue weight compard to its actual importance. Euryalus (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Belinda Neal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Disputed?

[edit]

There was a disputed tag on the page since 2016 but no explanation here, so I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:31A6:BE00:44E1:1E3C:537:6DEE (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belinda_Neal&oldid=1204223720"