Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Nikolic/Archive 1

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

Other pages of possible interest/relevance:

Controversy section

[edit]

The extremely lengthy discussion has been archived at Talk:Andrew Nikolić/2012-May

The recently-added Controversy section contains subjective and emotive content (e.g. "international ridicule", "threatening response"). In addition, since the edited content admits that the comments allegedly made by Mr Nikolic have been deleted, verification of the screenshots mentioned in the edit is not possible. Mr Nikolic contends that the screenshots contained comments that he did not make. A fake account purporting to be him appeared on Facebook around this time, and posted obscenities to his Facebook page. These obscenities were screenshotted and a complaint was made to Facebook. The offending page was subsequently deleted by Facebook Admin.
Other Facebook sites have been springing up in the past week satirising and defaming Mr Nikolic. In light of the general nature of the movement happening here, and the fact that the edits are being perpetrated by political opponents of Mr Nikolic, the "Controversy" edit on this page should be scrapped, and a longer-lasting protection should be added to the page to prevent further malicious editing. Catagunyah (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the following before discovering this thread: (Copied from User_talk:Youreallycan#Nikolic)
Hmmm. I'm not going to revert it, but I'm not comfortable with your edit. Yes, I agree that the section gives "undue coverage", but given that: 1) The guy wants to stand for political office; 2) It has a supporting reference from a reliable source; and 3) His response demonstrates a complete lack of political skill; I don't think complete deletion is a good response. Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the additional information posted here on this talk page, it's clear that there is a controversy, and that the controversy, (not the opinions, spin, propaganda, etc.), should be reported in an encyclopaedic manner. Is anyone willing/able to do that? Or is it the case that there is not yet enough objective information available? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is heaps of information available in multiple reliable refs as this incident is being reported throughout Australia as well as in international media. I agree that the controversy is relevant, particularly as it appears that it will possibly end the subject's political career. I will revert the edit removing the controversy section, add refs, and then attempt to edit for appropriate tone. Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HI - PLEASE DON'T REPLACE CONTENT DISPUTED AT THE NOTICEBOARD WITHOUT CONSENSUS SUPPORT THERE = THANKS - ALSO PLEASE PRESENT YOUR ASSERTED ADDITIONAL RELIABLE CITATIONS THERE FOR INVESTIGATION - THANKS - Youreallycan 04:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need the BLP Noticeboard? We have a talk page on this article. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, stop shouting. There's no need for capslock. Second, there are multiple reliable references to the material in the controversy section. There is no valid reason this information should be excluded, and comment has been made on the BLP page with consensus emerging that the information is appropriate but needed more refs. I just added more refs.Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi - Is this issue being reported in other reliable sources the one that was supporting it didnt really explain it well at least not to me to make it noteworthy of reporting a large section in his life story? Youreallycan 13:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP noticeboard report

[edit]

There is also a complaint about the removed content at the BLP noticeboard - please see - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andrew_Nikolic - Youreallycan 15:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what's on that page:

Editing of this page has been semi-protected until 13 May 2012. The recently-added Controversy section of this page contains subjective and emotive content (e.g. "international ridicule", "threatening response"). In addition, since the edited content admits that the comments allegedly made by Mr Nikolic have been deleted, verification of the screenshots mentioned in the edit is not possible. Mr Nikolic contends that the screenshots contained comments that he did not make. A fake account purporting to be him appeared on Facebook around this time, and posted obscenities to his Facebook page. These obscenities were screenshotted and a complaint was made to Facebook. The offending page was subsequently deleted by Facebook Admin. Other Facebook sites have been springing up in the past week satirising and defaming Mr Nikolic. In light of the general nature of the movement happening here, and the fact that the edits are being perpetrated by political opponents of Mr Nikolic, the "Controversy" edit on this page should be scrapped, and a longer-lasting protection should be added to the page to prevent further malicious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catagunyah (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it - as undue trivia - Youreallycan 06:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I agree with both of the above. However, it is obvious and documented in reliable sources that there is indeed "a Controversy". I believe the article should contain objective mention that there is a Controversy. I agree that what is/was there is/was overstated and not objective. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be anything there. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a local to the event (which may make it easier to search and find sources) can you please present some wp:reliable sources this issue is reported in so as users can evaluate the content/desired addition - thanks - Youreallycan 16:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a noteworthy event, particularly as it looks like it's possibly ending the subject's political career. I too am local and aware of this story being printed in numerous reliable Australian and international media sources. I will revert the deletion, add references, and attempt to edit for appropriate tone. Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present the citations here first for investigation and discussion, as the content is as you can see - contentious thanks - Youreallycan 04:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google.com.au produces dozens of related links:
Etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a controversy does exist, and has reliable sources after all, although the "Register" might be a dubious source. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is edit warring of this disputed content into the biography - its disputed facebook comment and they are warring these undue comment style into the article - Nikolic garnered international ridicule in May of 2012 = INTERNATIONAL RIDICULE ? Youreallycan 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) Please don't use caps lock. b) You are the one who is edit warring. c) Yes, ridicule. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, international ridicule. He is being held up as a laughing stock by people in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, America, etc. However, in the interest of neutral tone, "ridicule" has been changed to "criticism". Autumnalmonk (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the addition is not neutral - and I have added a NPOV template until it is - Youreallycan 05:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ridicule" changed to the more neutral "criticism" in the interest of tone- though I think "ridicule" was certainly accurate. Autumnalmonk (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original use of "ridicule", but in the interest of closing this issue, which clearly has been resolved, I'll accept the inaccurate "criticism". Pdfpdf (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Ridicule" has been changed to "criticism" in the interest of tone. As for "threatening response", he made a threat in his response so this is not subjective nor "emotive content".
2. Nikolic made the comments himself and posted the matching info-trolled data on the people he threatened to his established account, establishing that it was indeed Nikolic and not an imposter who made the threats. While he may have thought that by deleting the posts he was erasing all the evidence of his behavior, on being confronted with proof in the form of the screenshots he was unable to further categorically deny what he had done.
3. Imposter accounts are irrelevant to this matter. It is just as likely that they were created by Nikolic himself as an attempt to provide a cover-story to hide his behavior ex post facto.
4. Regardless of who is entering the information into the wiki page, the information is factual, heavily referenced (now), and of sufficiently neutral tone to be appropriate. Just because something is stated by a person of differing opinion does not make it untrue.
5. Yes, numerous Facebook pages, articles, Youtube videos, and the like are appearing that are criticising and satirizing Nikolic since the scandal erupted. This is because a very large number of people have some very strong negative reactions to Nikolic threatening people online, attempting to censor the internet, using intimidation to stifle opposing political perspectives, and then lying about his own behavior. Not only is this the understandable, and indeed even expectable, response of the populace- but further, it too is totally irrelevant to the presentation of factual and well-referenced information of a neutral tone on the subject's wiki page.
Autumnalmonk (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although ridicule itself is POV, the factual reporting of ridicule, backed up by numerous reliable sources, is fact, not POV. As I said above, I believe that use of the word "ridicule" is accurate and justifiable. But in the interest of closing this discussion, I'll let it pass. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like the gentleman above mentions, I don't see why we need to discuss it there. Here seems perfectly adequate to me. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from above

[edit]

This is all very suspicious (no allegations intended). The article about Andrew Nikolic is in general well edited and substantially larger than the article about the actual sitting member of parliament in the seat of Bass Geoff Lyons. Furthermore, the recent story about Nikolic's online threats is probably the most noteworthy story to ever emerge about him and yet some users are seeking to delete the (nationally and internationally reported) story as if it's NPOV or not relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. All I'm saying is regular editors in the Wikipedia community should be vigilant in watching this article to ensure that it's not being edited for ideological reasons. 203.217.8.75 (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The strong negative reactions mentioned by user AutumnalMonk are politically partisan, and AutumnalMonk's own comments and edits do not satisfy the Wikipedia requirement of neutrality -- e.g. comments such as "it looks like it's possibly ending the subject's political career." are clearly hyperbolic. Mr Nikolic continues to be the Liberal Party of Australia's candidate for the seat of Bass. Edits so far have not reflected Mr Nikolic's point of view and so the current edit is ipso facto biased. If the Controversy section is to remain, I am prepared to provide some balance to the information provided as per Pdfpdf's request (--> the controversy, (not the opinions, spin, propaganda, etc.), should be reported in an encyclopaedic manner. Is anyone willing/able to do that?), but I am constrained by real-life commitments for about two or three days. The semi-protection will expire in a day, but hopefully the ability to edit the Controversy section will remain open for a bit longer.
Catagunyah (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. My comments here in the talk page and on the BLP page are not required to be neutral nor cited. They are my comments and perspectives as a wiki contributer, just as your unsourced comments here are. What I have contributed to the article is supported by numerous reliable sources.
2. Given the scope of the scandal this has caused and the fact that the subject is facing international derision over it, it is not hyperbole to suspect that the negative impact it is having MAY render the subject unelectable even should he maintain his candidacy.
3. Nikolic's statement as reported in published sources ("I can neither confirm nor deny...") HAS been included in the article so your assertion that his "point of view" is not reflected in the article is false. Further, the article is based on accurate reflections of objective, reliable published sources so your assertion that it is "ipso facto biased" is also false.
4. If you can contribute reliable information regarding the controversy from valid and reliable published sources, by all means join the collaboration of those editors, including myself, who are working on this article. If all you can do is say that reliable published sources are wrong based on what you personally believe, without any reliable and objective published sources to back you up, then you have no business contributing to the article.
Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user is totally correct your comments in discussion reveal you are a conflicted contributor a single purpose account in this issue and have shown you are unable to contribute to this article neutrally Youreallycan 08:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I really think that you ought to withdraw those accusations post haste. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, however, the accuracy of the various sources quoted in support of the edit are questionable:
  • The article by James Manning, which appeared in several Australian news sources, was written on the basis of a Facebook screenshot provided by a source which is not identified and which contains absolutely no date information. It is hardly a reliable piece of primary source evidence. Mr Nikolic was unable to confirm that he had made the comment attributed to him in this screenshot, which doesn't actually prove that he made the comment; hence the basic assumption of the article is flawed.
  • Mr Nikolic has attempted to clarify his position with the journalist James Manning, but these attempts are nowhere reflected in the articles, nor in the Wikipedia page edit;
  • The thread from which this supporting screenshot was taken still exists, but the comment attributed to Mr Nikolic is now absent. Hence the attribution to Mr Nikolic is unconfirmed and consists merely of hearsay.
  • The "International" commentaries seem to build on this, and are thus equally unreliable;
  • At around the same time as this controversy erupted, a "spoof" Facebook profile appeared which used Mr Nikolic's name, profile picture and basic biography info. This spoof profile made a number of posts containing links and picture previews of a disgusting nature (human feces and badly-burned genitals). It seems this profile was reported to Facebook and subsequently banned or deleted. Screenshots of the posts made were taken before the profile was deleted.
  • The comment attributed to Mr Nikolic in the thread (and appearing in the screenshot used as the basis for the article) disappeared with the banning of the "spoof" page. This is consistent with the effect of Facebook Admin banning a page, and is also consistent with Mr Nikolic being unable to confirm that he made the comment. Hence it is entirely possible that the comment was spurious to begin with.
The incident has the hallmarks of a scam perpetrated by political opponents of Mr Nikolic which was unfortunately carried by a gullible reporter without adequate cross-checking. I think there is sufficient doubt over the whole matter to delete the "Controversy" edit entirely, unless it is deemed necessary to spell out the entire scope of doubt surrounding the affair that I've mentioned above.
Catagunyah (talk) 11:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal feelings that this whole thing is some sort of scam are wholly irrelevant and your entire argument here is nothing more than conjecture and heresay. To date there is not a single valid and reliable published source to cite regarding any of what you have just hypothesized, whereas there are literally scores of valid and reliable sources from multiple professional journalists in multiple publications around the globe that fundamentally disagree with you, only a relatively small number of which have so far been cited as references to the "controversy" section of this article. Further, I assert that given the huge body of reliable sources who have found that there was sufficient evidence to publish reports of the incident, the controversy is NOT at all in doubt and needs to remain in the article. To remove it from this article would be nothing less than additional furtive attempts to conceal the events and the issues it raises.
Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For heavens sake! At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, I will once again repeat: There is absolutely no doubt that there is a controversy.
There is considerable uncertainty about just what the facts are.
But there is absolutely no doubt that there has been copious reporting, in numerous reliable sources, that there has been some sort of "incident". I see no problem with wikipedia neutrally recording what has been reported. What has been reported may, (or may not), be completely accurate, and/or completely unbiased. But the fact remains that it has indeed been reported!
Catagunyah, you do yourself (and your credibility) a great dis-service by suggesting that the section be completely removed.
I do not find it bigoted or biased to state on this talk page that: what has been reported, and the way it has been reported, is having a negative effect an Nikolic's reputation. If you put it in the article, it would be WP:OR. But here on the talk page, I see no problem, and personally I have no doubt that it is indeed "having a negative effect an Nikolic's reputation". Personally, I'm amused by all the conspiracy theories, and surprised by the emotions this "incident" is raising.
So why don't we try to keep the article as objective as possible? Despite what's been said on this talk page, I think that, given the information available to him, Autumnalmonk has done a reasonably good job of objectively reporting the facts available to him.
Autumnalmonk, just because it has not been reported does not mean it isn't true. (And vice versa.)
Catagunyah, some of what you say may indeed be the case, but without supporting references, it's just WP:OR.
Well, I'm off to bed. Goodnight. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated at WP:BLPN, particularly because of the WP:RECENTISM involved in this brouhaha, the material should be pared down to something much more manageable and placed in the Career section. At the moment, it's WP:UNDUE and at least arguably violates WP:BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amusing that, with the recent changes by Youreallycan, I now find the section biassed. Bbb23 has improved it, but the removal of the fact that the original facebook posting was satirical, was posted on a page specifically known for posting of satire, and was lifted from "the Onion", even better known for satire, is a significant omission.
Similarly, the changes avoid mention that the the international comment was about Nikolic's reported reaction to the satirical posting.
The way it currently written, it tells less than half the story, and thus can hardly be called unbiassed.
The fact that it mentions a quote from McQuestin, a quote which defends a response which Nikolic is reported to have said that he didn't make, is just plain misleading.
No, I'm not at all happy with Youreallycan's changes. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pdfpdf. Youreallycan deleted significant referenced material accurately reflecting published accounts of the controversy and replaced it with a clearly biased account that missed the point of most of the references, omitted major factors of the incident, and included irrelevant statements by other Liberal party members. Such edits are not in the spirit of NPV or encyclopedic values. What concerns me most is that such edits appear to be being made by partisans for the sole purpose of further concealing a highly publicized scandal that already involves major concerns about censorship on the net, apparent deception, and the concealing of evidential material. Thank you for editing back in the factual, relevant, and sourced information Pdfpdf. Autumnalmonk (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem here is that you are over egging the pudding - and using this minor issue in a manner of undue reporting in his life story to attack and demean the subject of this article - one of you is a WP:SPA in this issue only editing to that position - we don't allow partisans to use wikipedia to attack the subjects of our articles - see WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT - the details of what the anonymous person posted on the www are relevant as is the supporting comments of the notable person. - I adressed a couple of the points raised above and added satirical and a link to The Onion - As an additional point - in WP:MOS it states that controversy is not a recommended NPOV title for a section - create a section title that lets readers know what the section is about - Youreallycan 08:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. A real problem here is that Youreallycan likes editwarring and doesn't let the facts get in the way of his biassed opinions. Another real problem here is that Youreallycan does not understand that a) there is a controversy and b) that the controversy is about what was reported, not about what has happened. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic diversion

[edit]
Yes. It is a shame that an attempt to attack this living person has been supported by yourself, a fairly experienced contributor - your support of the WP:SPA partisan has made the situation far more disruptive and I can only assume you have a real life WP:COI in regards to this issue or you would be defending neutrality with policy yourself. - International ridicule indeed, a person that is absolutely internationally unknown.Youreallycan 09:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to remove the above statements. Firstly, they are a personal attack (WP:NPA). Secondly, they are not supported by either fact or reality. Thirdly, they are is vaguely libelous.
At no time have I "supported an attack". That statement is false. Please withdraw it immediately.
your support of the WP:SPA - who is the SPA?
I can only assume you have a real life WP:COI - Humph. Another example of you not letting the facts get in the way of your biased opinion.
International ridicule indeed - Are you naive? He has been subjected to ridicule in publications in Italy, UK and US. That sounds pretty musch like international ridicule to me. What do you define it as?
a person that is absolutely internationally unknown - Well that statement is just plain false. Something only has to be between two nations to be international. Simply as a result of his military service he is 'not "absolutely internationally unknown"
Perhaps you might like to get some facts, and check that they are correct, before you start making libelous statements?
Pdfpdf (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't add opinionated section headers thanks - Youreallycan 09:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make personal attacks and libelous statements.
If you do not quickly do something to withdraw them, I will quickly do something to get you banned from Wikipedia for making libelous statements. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting comment

[edit]

Please stop removing the supporting comment from the Liberal president - there is no excuse to do that, at least no neutral one. - Pdfpdf's reason for removal is totally incorrect, "irrelevant comment with bad grammar" , its a comment in support of the subjects action when all we have so far is criticism so clearly its removal is against WP:NPOV and the fact if it was bad grammar is also irrelevant to whether or not we add it. Youreallycan 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are not letting the facts get in the way of your personally biased opinion.
As I have said 3 or 4 times, it is a statement supporting an action that Nikolic claims not to have done.
There is not only an "excuse" for removing it. There is a reason. It is irrelevant.
Please explain why you think it is relevant to the topic of media reaction to media reports.
Until you can explain how and why it is relevant, I, and others, will continue to remove it.
Pdfpdf (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second off topic diversion

[edit]
I don't have any personal bias apart from WP:Policy and guidelines I am a totally uninvolved neutral. It is a supporting comment and that makes it relevant - Media reports of media reactions is not what the section is actually about, it's just a silly title you have given the section.
Are you and User:Autumnalmonk the same person or editing from the same location? Youreallycan 09:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Watch it sunshine. You are treading on very dangerous ground. If you do not remove your libelous comments quickly, I will initiate action. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a very similar editing style? - Youreallycan 09:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Pdfpdf and I do seem to recognize the same facts about this issue. It's a pity that apparently everyone doesn't have a similar ability to apprehend facts when presented with simple documentary evidence. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back on topic

[edit]
I don't have any personal bias apart from WP:Policy and guidelines I am a totally uninvolved neutral. It is a supporting comment and that makes it relevant - Media reports of media reactions is not what the section is actually about, it's just a silly title you have given the section.
Are you and User:Autumnalmonk the same person or editing from the same location? Youreallycan 09:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, deary, I am a real whole person all to myself, thank you. And as my bio states, I'm down Tasmania whereas Pdfpdf's bio states he is on the mainland, so no, not even the same location unless you're counting nations or continents as a single "location". Any more libelous insinuations or ad hominem comments you'd like to make before we get back to dealing with the matter of the article? Autumnalmonk (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any personal bias - Comments posted on your talk pages would suggest otherwise.
I am a totally uninvolved neutral. - No, you are neither "totally uninvolved", nor "neutral".
Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a supporting comment - What is it supporting? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a comment from a noteworthy person in regards to the issue - it is supportive and understanding of the subjects comments/actions - and there is no good reason not to include it - some will agree with him . Youreallycan 11:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is an irrelevant comment that simply shows sympathy for Nikolic's hurt feelings. It does not add anything substantive to the article, nor does it address the core issues of the scandal such as Nikolic threatening users, attempting to thwart free speech, etc. The statement should be deleted. Autumnalmonk (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media reports of media reactions is not what the section is actually about, it's just a silly title you have given the section. - Well, if you do not think that is what it is about, what do you think it is about? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its about these facebook claims/facebook comments - claims is better as there is a doubt as to who made the comments - Facebook should be in the header and that is where the issue is alleged to have occurred - we don't title sections with media this and media that. Youreallycan 11:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
International ridicule indeed - Are you naive? He has been subjected to ridicule in publications in Italy, UK and US. That sounds pretty musch like international ridicule to me. What do you define it as?
a person that is absolutely internationally unknown - Well that statement is just plain false. Something only has to be between two nations to be international. Simply as a result of his military service he is 'not "absolutely internationally unknown"
Still awaiting your response.Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is absolutely unknown - unheard of outside of Australia apart from the couple of fringe publications that have repeated this trivia story - Youreallycan 11:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
your support of the WP:SPA - who is the SPA?
Still awaiting your response.Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Autumnalmonk IS THE WP:SPA his only contributions of any significance in the last year has been to this single issue - Youreallycan 11:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to think very carefully about what you are saying here. This account is in its third year and although I have been on an editing hiatus for a while, I have contributed significantly to several articles and minorly to many across a wide range of topics. Of course, the tossing about of insults is a common tactic of those whose logical positions are untenable. Stop with the ad hominem and focus on the information relevant to the article. Autumnalmonk (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section header here is hardly accurate. You folks are not back "on topic" at all. You are sniping at each other to no productive purpose. First, let's drop the sock puppet accusations. If anyone thinks anyone else is a sock puppet, they can open a report at WP:SPI. Second, let's stop using the word "libelous" over and over. It's a legal term and has no business in this discussion. If you want to claim that someone is making a personal attack, fine, you can say so and if there's no movement by the other, you can go to WP:WQA or to WP:ANI or create a WP:RFC/U, but this continuous squabbling and attacking each other is unproductive and unseemly. So, without putting blame on any particular editor, just stop.

As for the article, I don't like some of the changes made since I last saw it, but all I've done so far is change the section header. We cannot label it a scandal. That's POV and uncallled for. As for the rest, which I haven't touched, what I don't like are editorializing, topic sentence type material like "gained international attention" and "garnered considerable criticism". Even with sources to back up those characterizations, they smack of ediorialization on our part. We should be reporting the facts as they are reported in reliable sources. We shouldn't add our own gloss. I haven't changed this material because I don't want to be seen as unreasonably unilateral here - there's already enough inflamed rhetoric. But I welcome comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Youreallycan and Pdfpdf are blocked 72 hours for edit-warring, so possibly some cooler heads might care to step in and discuss the issue like rational adults. Moreschi (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break after drama

[edit]

I made some comments above about what I objected to in the current version of this section. Here's a proposal as to how to change it (without citations):

In May 2012, comments were anonymously posted on the New Examiner's Facebook page stating that Nikolic had claimed to have been "heroically killed in action during services in Afghanistan" and that he also claimed to have suffered "a slow, painful death by torture at the hands of Tamil militants in 2002". Nikolić responded on the Facebook page saying he intended to write official letters of complaint to all the employers of users who "liked" the article. When interviewed, Nikolic said he and his family were offended by the post but denied he had made any threats. Liberal Party president Sam McQuestin defended Nikolic's response: "The activities that were being undertaken by others on Facebook was distasteful particularly as he is the father of a member serving in the Australian Army."

I have removed all the editorializing about media attention, Ausralian, international, etc., as unnecessary. I also don't see why we have to have The Onion stuff in here. Why does it matter what the comments were supposedly modeled after? It's relatively trivial.

I also favor moving this from a separate subsection, which gives it undue prominence, to another section, either Political career or Personal life (renaming the section called Family). If this controversy becomes bigger and takes on broader and more long-lasting importance, we can consider making a separate section, depending on how things evolve. At the moment, it's simply too recent to know how important it will be to him and to his career.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Nobody Ent
I agree in general but would suggest two minor emendations:
1. Change "comments were" in first line to "an article was".
2. The quote at the end should be removed as irrelevant and undue. Besides, it appears to be justifying a "response" that the subject denies making. Autumnalmonk (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with your first suggestion (although see below for a MUCH smaller report on these events), but your second suggestion actually highlights the confusion inherent in this story. I could also parse the assertions in "my" version further, but it would too much lawyering/nit-picking and not worth it. If you accept Mattinbgn's suggestion below, all the confusion disappears and it becomes much simpler and much cleaner.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massively undue coverage

[edit]

The idea of a separare section for this "controversy" is massively WP:UNDUE and seems at first glance to be the result of silly political games which don't belong here on Wikipedia. The whole topic has little encyclopedic relevance at all. If there must be coverage, it should not be more than one line - i.e. "Nikolic was the subject of a minor controversy when he reacted to a satirical article on Facebook by allegedly threatening to contact the employers of readers who "liked" the article. Nikolic denies making the threat." There, done. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I don't have a problem with reducing this to two (not one) lines, although others may. I would change your text just slightly to: "In May 2012, Nikolic reacted to a satirical article on Facebook by allegedly threatening to contact the employers of readers who 'liked' the article. Nikolic denied making the threat." --Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better than my version and I support its inclusion as a replacement for the existing mess. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should say that he initially denied making the threat, but then later reneged on it. See this source. He initially denied it, but then realized that he couldn't hide the fact that he did it, so he just said he didn't mean it. SilverserenC 23:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source reads a bit like an opinion piece, but I'm not particularly conversant with Australian news outlets. Exactly how would you word the text?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think shortening it to one sentence would work. 2 sentences seems better, 3 depending on what background info we include. And i'm not sure how to write it at the moment, but I will say that calling it a "minor controversy" is POV unless you have a source that calls it that. SilverserenC 01:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "minor controversy" was removed by me, which in turn was approved by Mattinbgn, so no need to worry about it. When you have a moment to suggest an alternative text, please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the source contradicts the proposed text. While Nikolic has admitted to making the comments in question, he still denies making threats - see "I have no intention of contacting employers – my request has always been that the offending (and plagiarised) post be taken down". We shouldn't be getting into a he said, she said back-and-forward. One comment on the initial incident, one response from the subject on fairness grounds per WP:BLP. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Once you get into the precise details of the events, it becomes more confusing rather than less. Often, statements by political candidates are vetted to ensure their literal accuracy, even if others might say they are misleading or don't really address the core issues. Then, as Mattinbgn says, Wikipedia would have to get into a back-and-forth to give the reader all the details so we don't mislead or misstate the sources. That then blows this up into something more than it deserves, which is why Mattinbgn's suggested text is preferable as a model of brevity.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SilverSeren on this and we need at least three sentences to accurately depict what had been published. Part of the problem, and a major part of this issue, is that Nikolic has himself gone back and forth in his position and was at first proud of what he'd done, then he tried to cover it all up and denied doing it, then when confronted with the evidence he said he couldn't confirm the completeness of the evidence because he no longer had the thread (convenient, since he'd deleted it), and finally it is appearing via hearsay (see above) that he's gone back to denying it and claiming it was posted by some imposter. So the story has two important parts: 1)the threats in an attempt to curtail online free speech, and 2)the deceptive attempt at a cover-up. Leaving his position as a simple denial over-simplifies things and does not accurately reflect published accounts. Autumnalmonk (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're now going in circles (back to the inherent confusion of this whole story). I'll say the same to you as I did to Silver seren: please propose some actual text so it can be evaluated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Autumnalmonk. Disagree almost entirely with your premise. We are not journalists and Wikipedia articles are not venues to campaign against political figures - which is what you are attempting to do above. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to nail people for deception and neither it is not our job to make assessments on the truth or otherwise of anyone's statements. When we report in the article that Nikolic denies making threats - we do not claim he is telling the truth - we are simply saying what Nikolic's claim is. If you want to campaign against Nikolic and his alleged cover up, do it in a blog, via Twitter or somewhere other than here. Here, the entire matter is worth exactly two sentences and no more. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be clear about one thing. Mattinbgn and I agree on what should be included in the article. None of the subsequent comments by others has changed my mind. The only reason I asked Silver seren and Autumnalmonk to propose alternative text is out of fairness and because it's hard, at least for me, to evaluate what to include without the actual text.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating that we include all of my comment in the article, but my point is this: What is the accurate referenced statement of Nikolic's position, as the news articles suggest a shifting position before and after evidence was revealed during the interview? In my opinion it is not sufficient to simply state "Nikolic denied making any threats" because the ref's indicate he stopped denying it when presented with evidence to the contrary.
While I will reluctantly accept the two sentence structure, the second sentence should read someting like "Nikolic initially denied making any threats but prevaricated after being presented with screencapture evidence." Autumnalmonk (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "prevaricated" coupled with the word "evidence" makes it sound like we're a court of law and we've just found him guilty.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about: ""Nikolic initially denied making any threats but prevaricated after being presented with screencaptures." If "prevaricated" is an unsuitable word I'm open to something else being used, but I'm not sure what other term would capture the sense that he changed his position to a "neither confirm nor deny" sort of response. Perhaps "... but withdrew his denial when presented with screencaptures"? Autumnalmonk (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you're really trying to say is he initially denied it but his denial didn't square with "the truth", and I don't think that's supportable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google Search for "Andrew Nikolic" and asides from this page, and his election campaign website (which is almost the entire substance of the other information in this article) every other link is about the Facebook comment controversy. It probably seems like a very minor issue to write about (and it doesn't need an extensive level of coverage in the article), but its important to realize the said political candidate isn't a prominent individual either. I live in Tasmania and this is about the most I've ever read about Andrew Nikolic. I'm not an editor on Wikipedia anymore, but I do believe it isn't undue coverage to include a paragraph on the comments he made. 60.231.176.33 (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A juicy story in the press is not necessarily material that should be included in an encyclopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moving forward

[edit]

Except Pdfpdf, who has been unable to contribute, all editors now agree that the material should not have a separate section and it should be significantly pared down. Two of us, Mattinbgn and I, have agreed on the language to be included. I think it's probably safe to say that Nobody Ent would also agree, although he has not directly commented lately. We have two editors, Silver seren and Autumnalmonk, who believe that something more needs to be added but Silver seren has not proposed actual text and Autumnalmonk's wording really isn't acceptable.

Therefore, what I'm going to do at this point is to move the not-completely-agreed-upon text to another section of the article and remove the separate section (and tag). We can still continue to discuss whether anything additional needs to be included, but while that discussion is ongoing, BLP concerns would be better served with the reduced text as the status quo.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2012, Nikolić reacted to a satirical article on Facebook by allegedly threatening to contact the employers of readers who 'liked' the article. Nikolić denied making the threat.
  • James Manning (9 May 2012). "Liberal candidate threatens Facebook users over satirical article". The Canberra Times.
  • Richard Chirgwin (8 May 2012). "Oz candidate menaces Facebook users". The Register. UK.
  • Rosemary Bolger (9 May 2012). "Nikolic cops online abuse". The Examiner (Tasmania).

Good. Much better. However, probably the most significant thing about "the event" was the amount of media coverage it got. The current version makes no mention of that at all. Also, I'm not at all sure that what it currently says is accurate. It is not at all clear that "Nikolić reacted ... by allegedly threatening". What is clear is that "it was reported that Nikolić reacted ... by threatening". I'm not at all sure that anything was alleged. If anything was alleged, who alleged what? I don't think the reporters alleged anything, I think they just reported. Also, it was reported widely in the Fairfax media, in well over a dozen Fairfax newspapers, and also in other media. To state that Manning's article was in the Canberra Times is highly misleading - it was also in The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and numerous lesser circulated papers.
So, what do you think of the following? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2012, it was widely reported that Nikolić had reacted to a satirical article on Facebook by threatening to contact the employers of readers who 'liked' the article. Nikolić denied making the threat.[1][2][3][4][5]
1. James Manning (9 May 2012). "Liberal candidate threatens Facebook users over satirical article". Fairfax Media - The Canberra Times and many other newspapers including The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 12 May 2012. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
2. Gabriella Tesoro (11 May 2012). "Quando la satira online colpisce i permalosi". PuntoInformatico (in Italian). Rome. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
3. Richard Chirgwin (8 May 2012). "Oz candidate menaces Facebook users". The Register. UK. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
4. Rosemary Bolger (9 May 2012). "Nikolic cops online abuse". The Examiner. Tasmania. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
5. Nick Clark (9 May 2012). "Lib candidate in Facebook spat". The Mercury. Hobart. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
Hi, Pdfpdf, welcome back. I understand your points, but I have a couple of problems with your proposed text. I do appreciate, though, that we're at least now discussing only a couple of sentences rather than a big chunk. First, the use of the word "widely". It's kind of a dangerous word. You want to use it because you think the coverage of the events was widespread. The problem is that this kind of incident often gets major coverage. The only thing missing from the elements of a juicy story is sex. How do we determine when we should use the word "widely" and when we shouldn't (the number of different countries? the number of different press outlets?)? Does it matter if the coverage is essentially one periodical repeating what the other did before it? I hate the phrase, but it strikes me as a slippery slope. Right now, there are three citations in the article for the two lines, two from Australia and one from the UK. If it had been reported by only one newspaper, we wouldn't need that many cites, Indeed, I intentionally chose cites from different places to indicate that the coverage wasn't confined to Australia.
My second problem is the use of the word "satirical". Even assuming the Facebook posts were intended to be satirical (supposedly modeled after The Onion), our using the word in such a brief mention implies that Niiolić knew the posts were satirical but responded as if they were serious, or maybe he wasn't smart enough to connect the posts to this other satirical material, thereby implying he's not very bright. Either way, it has a subtle spin to it that is non-neutral. Anyway, that's my reaction. We'll see if others comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, it would seem that the problem with compressing it to two lines is that you can be left with vagueness and/or ambiguity. i.e. Q: What does "widely reported" mean? A: It depends. It could mean any one or more of at least three things. As someone detailed above, going down that path can then very quickly escalate into an overkill of explanation. Presumably, the solution is to be both precise as well as concise. And I agree that "widely reported" is not precise.
The satirical was there before I made any suggestions. Although I don't agree with your reasons for removal, I feel that it can be removed without affecting the "message" - if anyone is interested enough to read the sources, they will find out quickly enough that it was a satirical posting, and can jump to whatever conclusion they like to from what the source has said, not from what wp has said.
OK. So let's try something else. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary breakpoint to facilitate editing

[edit]
Proposed version: In May 2012, it was reported that Nikolić had reacted to a posting on Facebook by threatening to contact the employers of readers who 'liked' the posting. Nikolić denied making the threat.[1][2][3][4][5]
Current version: In May 2012, Nikolić reacted to a satirical article on Facebook by allegedly threatening to contact the employers of readers who 'liked' the article. Nikolić denied making the threat.
I put the two versions up because I'm embarrassed by my earlier comments. Not only did I get confused as to what the current version was compared to your earlier proposal, but I actually argued against part of the current version, which I had originally agreed to. I don't know what the proves exactly, but whatever it is, it makes me look silly. Trying to move along, the only differences between your latest version and the current version are (1) addition of report and deletion of allegedly (I think the two changes are connected); (2) use of the word posting instead of article; and (3) looks like you want to cite 5 instead of 3 sources.
Trying to think about this fresh, with the possible exception of what sources you want to cite (just to avoid overkill), I'm happy with your changes. I like reported because it's more neutral and less legalistic than allegedly. And I like the idea of removing the word satirical for the reasons I stated above (even if I was confused). So, please post what sources you want to cite and we'll wait for others to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I do not understand your request: please post what sources you want to cite. Have I not already done that? Do you mean that you want me to make another copy of what I stated above? Or do you mean something else? Sorry for my confusion. (I'll fall back on the excuse: "It's been a long week.") Pdfpdf (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the five listed sources above the arbitrary break? If so, do you still want all five (including the ones in a foreign language)?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my "dyslexia". Yes, I did mean the five listed sources above the arbitrary break. Yes, I did still want all five at that time. Yes, including the one in Italian. I have recorded my thoughts below. (i.e. see below.) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the first four, although I admit it's partly that I'd like to put this whole thing to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL! (I made a similar comment about a week ago ... )
OK. In the interest of expedience, I made the change. If anyone objects enough to change it, I imagine they will. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I propose that the following four - or five - references be included. 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

1. James Manning (9 May 2012). "Liberal candidate threatens Facebook users over satirical article". Fairfax Media - The Canberra Times and many other newspapers including The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 12 May 2012. {{cite news}}: External link in |work= (help)
  • Being the most numerously distributed and the most widely geographically distributed, (carried by well over a dozen papers in the Fairfax Media stable, particularly their major capital city, major distribution mastheads, The Age and The SMH), there doesn't seem much doubt to me that this should be the first in the list of references. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nick Clark (9 May 2012). "Lib candidate in Facebook spat". The Mercury. Hobart. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
  • This one shows more of the "alleged conversation". Also, it's from a local paper, and it fills in some gaps in the first article. Therefore, I think it should appear as the second in the list of references. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Gabriella Tesoro (11 May 2012). "Quando la satira online colpisce i permalosi". PuntoInformatico (in Italian). Rome. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
4. Richard Chirgwin (8 May 2012). "Oz candidate menaces Facebook users". The Register. UK. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
5. Rosemary Bolger (9 May 2012). "Nikolic cops online abuse". The Examiner. Tasmania. Retrieved 12 May 2012.
  • I'm not sure about this one. It's the only other local paper I've come across, but it doesn't add any information or facts, and it certainly pushes a point of view. Someone else can choose if this is included or not. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the first four, although I admit it's partly that I'd like to put this whole thing to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asides
I had wondered if this one should be added to the list. I think not. What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No and no.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Some of you may wish to look at the NewExaminer facebook page. And/or the Andrew Nikolic facebook page. (Or not.) Pdfpdf (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories

[edit]

A new thread: There were lots of conspiracy theories around, in particularly, that the screenshots were fake and Nikolic had been set up. Has anyone noticed a reliable source discussing conspiracy theories? (I haven't - yet) Pdfpdf (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Nikolic/Archive_1&oldid=1049850572"