Talk:Gillian Triggs/Archive 1

Archive 1

History

History has disappeared - there were changes in April 2015, can no longer see them. This page is politically hot in Australia at the moment - some are trying to undermine Gillian Triggs influence. The changes done in April 2015 are to the entry about her third daughter - that information was added in April. I believe that the stuff about her personal life, particularly a negative bit of stuff, was placed by a politically motivated person, and the removal of the history hides the timing of that. The timing of the change, in pril 2015, coincides with other attempts to undermine her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.135.16 (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverted removal of personal life

I have reverted recent removal of Triggs' personal life. Her career and personal life (particularly details of her disabled daughter) have been covered in WP:RS and therefore warrant inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for the explanation. Being covered in WP:RS appears to confirm only the veracity of the entry. I believe that the entry, while true, is of a very personal nature, almost corresponding to sexual history, and is entered only to denigrate her. I therefore believe it should be removed. And what did happen to the history which was here on the 12th of February 2015)? I ask this because in my naturally paranoid manner it looks to me as if "they" have changed the entry and hidden the history of changes because they show that it coincides with political attacks against her. She is much more than her reaction to unfortunate events in her personal life.

Once a person is notable, we cover everything, not just the particular facts that make them notable. I can't see any deleted revisions in the article history (they normally show up with a strikethrough e.g. There is one in the article history of Malcolm Turnbull at 12:33 on 24 February 2015‎: (link)). If you think a revision that has been deleted is not showing up in the history, you'll need to raise it with someone from The Audit Subcommittee. --Surturz (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If this page were to cover everything then it would have a lot more information relating to her other two children. The imbalance here is quite possibly due to an imbalanced point of view of the subject by previous editors. It seems quite unfitting for so much text to be devoted to an extremely personal matter, when there really isn't that much information on the page relating to other dimensions of her life. Considering that she is primarily known for her career and work, I find this rather striking, if not suggestive. I recently removed redundant language in this section-

"Triggs and Clark chose to arrange for Victoria to be primarily cared for by another family, rather than look after her themselves". "Triggs and Clark arranged for Victoria to be primarily cared for by another family". Can anyone genuinely defend the original wording? It really is tiresome to have to hose away the trashy innuendo from wikipedia all the time.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your efforts.

If you have reliable info on her other children, or other aspects of her life, please add it to the article. Various pundits have commented on her disabled daughter in a critical manner (notably, Piers Akerman). Someone reading one of those pundits might be interested in looking on Wikipedia to find out the truth of the matter. We should be presenting the facts in a neutral way. That way the reader can make their own mind up on the issue and decide whether the pundits have a point or not. --Surturz (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not in favour of adding more detail about her children because , I am in favour of de-emphasising irrelevant personal information that was quite possibly raised in a print article for the purposes of maligning the subject. The information takes up 1/6th of the entire page, and is not notable save for the fact that it was used by a particular journalist to try to undermine the subject's credibility. If anything, info should be added specifically mentioning Piers Akerman's attack, including the response from other journalists criticising him, since that is the only relevance the information has in terms of the subject's public notability. The section in question comes very close to conflicting with wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons, which in various ways suggests to err on the side of caution.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't just remove stuff because you don't like it or it reflects badly on the person. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Brandis Censure

I added info outlining the Senate's censure of Brandis for his attacks on Triggs, with references. As this dimension has led to edits and immediate reverts, let's discuss here first.137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are also IP 121.218.248.9, but per WP:BLP, any allegations of illegality or impropriety by Brandis must be well-referenced or you can expect them to be removed immediately. In general, any content you add to the encyclopedia should be backed by reliable references. --Surturz (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What you are sure of is not relevant, nor would you be correct if you were sure. However, my recent additions are well referenced, and I invite you to read them properly. Your recent edit was not supported by the reference, and was reverted immediately. As you have been responsible for summary reverts with little comment, I invite you to use this page more frequently to discuss proposed changes. As there is a confusion about the difference between triggering a controversy and the controversy itself, reading the reference is particularly apropos. I imagine there is a reference that states that the report itself is controversial, rather than the reactions from the AG. I invite you to find them. As far as the current refs are concerned, the article is about Brandis being censured, and that is the context that is explained by the sentence; "The HRC report that triggered the controversy said a third of detained children had developed mental illnesses of such severity that they required psychiatric treatment." The reference here states that the report triggered the controversy, which is quite different from being the source of and therefore the subject of disagreement. Again, find the refs that will back that up.

Accusations of impropriety by Brandis are well-referenced here, I don't find any accusations of illegality in the page.137.111.13.200 (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the text that says the police are investigating Brandis per WP:BLP. Any suggestion of illegal conduct by anyone must be strongly supported by references. The Opposition have asked the AFP to investigate, but the Opposition are in Opposition and do not have the power to command the AFP to investigate. I have googled and cannot find any WP:RS indicating that the AFP are actively investigating the matter. Triggs herself declined to accuse Brandis of offering an inducement, and she's a lawyer, so I think we can dismiss it as political grandstanding at this point. --Surturz (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)