Jump to content

Talk:Craig Kelly/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Neutrality

This article reads more like a the promotional bio of the members website rather then a neutral wikipedia article. Someone with the time really needs to spend the time rewording much of this article.The Tepes (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

- totally agree, hes an active promoter of the fossil fuel industry, and has a facebook page full of yes men since he bans any user he disagrees with. I wonder if I look in the history of this page how much information he has in directly got removed from it. 13:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.120.99.113 (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Craig Kelly (politician). 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) 04:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Furniture salesman?

I'm no fan of this guy, but is it really accurate to say that he was furniture salesman? I know The Guardian reference says so [1], but was the columnist being a bit "creative" there? Adpete (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

A bit more, which I will get around to adding some time: "Before entering federal Parliament in August 2010, the Member for Hughes worked as an “export manager” for the Chipping Norton-based firm, DV Kelly Pty Ltd, that attempted to make money by importing flat-pack furniture from Asia and onselling it to Harvey Norman. The firm, founded by his parents Lawrence and Raima Kelly in 1962, hit trouble in December when winding-up orders were issued by the tax office. It shut its doors in January owing creditors and staff more than $4 million. Administrators and liquidators Cor Cordis have been appointed to pick over the wreckage." Adpete (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Craig Kelly's Facebook

Kelly's Facebook page now has a reliable source describing and analysing its contents. Could it please be placed into the article as an external link as it has information there which Kelly does not repeat in his other official channels of communication, and it is a subject of commentary in the article itself now. Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We can use the source discussing it but not the FB page itself. Go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
A first attempt. --Banno (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cardinal Pell conviction

In the Section Craig Kelly (politician)#Positions we list a number of topics on which Kelly has made public statements that show he is out of step with majority public opinion or matters of fact as accepted by subject matter experts. One of these topics is the conviction of Cardinal Pell. Pell’s conviction was overturned on 7 April 2020 by the High Court of Australia but the paragraph in this article appears not to have been altered significantly since that date. It is therefore anachronistic.

I suggest the Section titled “Positions” should remain devoted to Kelly’s eccentricities. Kelly’s position on the Pell conviction proved to be more correct than incorrect so I suggest it should have been removed from”Positions” sometime after 7 April 2020. Alternatively, the paragraph on Pell’s conviction should be substantially amended to acknowledge the High Court’s decision, and to present it as an example of Kelly going against the conventional wisdom and getting it right. Dolphin (t) 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that Pell was acquitted because of a technicality. He was not found innocent, but acquitted because it was "possible" that he was innocent. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you point to a reliable source that supports your view that “Pell was acquitted because of a technicality”? (To many readers and Users your view will look suspiciously like your POV.) There is a broad principle that an accused person is innocent until the court has finished its process, after which the person is either guilty or not guilty. Courts in general, and appeal courts in particular, will determine that the accused person is either guilty or not guilty: such courts do not declare that an accused person is innocent or that a convicted person is innocent. Appeal courts might speculate that a convicted person might be innocent and so should be acquitted, but those courts will never confer the status of “innocent” on a person; it is not a formal legal term applied to the accused (or the applicant in an appeal court). From a legal perspective, Pell is just as much “not guilty” as Lindy Chamberlain. Dolphin (t) 04:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It's right there in the judgement: "In their judgment, the judges said with respect to all five charges that, "Making full allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, there is a significant possibility ... that an innocent person has been convicted."" So the possibility that he is innocent means the jury convicted him wrongly. It's still not an exoneration by any means. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ratel: Your sentence "So the possibility that he is innocent means the jury convicted him wrongly. It's still not an exoneration by any means" is what is known on Wikipedia as original research - you have examined the facts, contemplated them carefully, and then drawn your own conclusion. Original research is explicitly forbidden on Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. There is no place for original research in the mainspace (articles) so there is also no place for original research on Talk pages. Just because you began with some facts doesn't mean you ended up with a verifiable statement from a reliable source - you ended up with original research. We are only interested in information that comes from reliable published sources and is therefore verifiable - please see WP:VERIFY. Dolphin (t) 11:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that's not OR, @Dolphin51:, that's the considered opinion of some experts, e.g. [2]. Tip: best not to quote WP policies to old editors, it's just annoying. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to "list a number of topics on which Kelly has made public statements that show he is out of step with majority public opinion or matters of fact as accepted by subject matter experts" - no, the section doesn't. The section lists his positions on topics (e.g. the Luxury Car Tax being a possible example of a popular move, making cars more affordable - also the fuel excise decrease proposal). As Kelly expressed his position on Pell's conviction and it was covered by reliable news sources, the section on Cardinal Pell should remain in the article. 211.30.238.60 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Dolphin51 inasmuch as we are recording his notable opinions and positions. Many conservatives backed Pell and disagreed with the conviction, so that's to be expected from a right winger like Kelly. However, I'll follow consensus and reinstate if any other voices back you. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
For the record: User:Ratel has removed the sub-section on the conviction of Cardinal Pell - see the diff. I think that is a good move and I thank Ratel for doing so. Kelly's position on Pell was notable and significant prior to Pell's win in the High Court; since then the situation has been reversed and Kelly's position is no longer particularly notable or significant - for example, every judge, solicitor and barrister in Australia is expected to show respect for the High Court decision and to acknowledge that Pell is not guilty. Similarly, J. Mark Weinberg, a member of the Victorian appeal court that heard Pell's initial appeal, hardly a "conservative", concluded that the conviction was unsafe. So it is no longer appropriate for Wikipedia to state or imply that Kelly is a member of a small and marginalised group who are willing to say Pell is not guilty. Dolphin (t) 11:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2021

Please add the following to the end of the COVID-19 section. Thank you. 211.30.238.60 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Two days after being reprimanded by Morrison, Kelly again posted about COVID-19 treatments on his Facebook page.[1] Kelly has been lobbying Greg Hunt and the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration to influence the recommendations of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce, ceasing only when his correspondence was subject to freedom of information applications.[2]

References

  1. ^ Maiden, Samantha (4 February 2021). "Craig Kelly defies the PM with new COVID treatment Facebook post". News.com.au. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
  2. ^ Mannix, Liam (5 February 2021). "Craig Kelly in bid to 'influence' government scientists on hydroxychloroquine". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 5 February 2021.
 Done J850NK (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add the following to the COVID-19 section, at the end of the paragraph where it talks about the Pete Evans podcast. Thank you. 211.30.238.60 (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Kelly reassured Evans that the government would not mandate vaccines for COVID-19.[1]

 Not done. I don't really see the significance of this addition in this context. This seems to be just his opinion/perspective. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gillespie, Eden. "Pete Evans thanks Craig Kelly for 'fighting for us' in video interview". The Feed. SBS. Retrieved 6 February 2021.
 Done Underlines his anti-vax position. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Zumbo allegations

So Kelly's chief of staff, Professor Frank Zumbo, has an AVO out against him and has allegedly been behaving inappropriately to the teenagers and young women in Kelly's office - six have come forward. source. Kelly has been standing by Zumbo, and this is one of the reasons why Kelly jumped ship from the Liberal Party. source. How do we go about putting this additional information in the article about Kelly? @Ratel:? It's clearly relevant to Kelly if it was one of the reasons he went independent. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You write “this is one of the reasons why Kelly jumped ship from the Liberal Party.” This looks to me like the speculation from a journalist or two. If so, it has no place in an encyclopaedia. Conversely, if Kelly or someone authoritative within the Liberal Party has made a formal statement to this effect then it may have a place in an encyclopaedia.
Allegations and criminal charges that may be made against Zumbo may have a place in an article about Zumbo but they have no place in our article about Kelly. Dolphin (t) 23:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The journalist says in the linked article "The MP agreed that he had effectively chosen to stand by Mr Zumbo rather than sack his staff member and remain a member of the Liberal Party." How is this only speculation from a journalist if Kelly confirms it himself? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I have read your nominated source and I agree you have correctly quoted the relevant sentence. The sentence says Kelly “agreed that he had effectively chosen to stand by Mr Zumbo ...” I think you have wisely and astutely used your intuition to conclude that this must have been one of the factors that motivated Kelly to resign from the Liberal Party. In many forums your intuition would be valued and applauded, but an encyclopaedia is not a place for wise people to display their intuition. On Wikipedia intuition is regarded as original research and it is not permitted.
Unless you can cite a reliable published source that states explicitly that Kelly’s reasons for quitting the Liberals included his decision to retain Zumbo I suggest it shouldn’t be stated on Wikipedia, regardless of how much you trust your own intuition. Remember that both Kelly and Zumbo are living persons and Wikipedia’s standards for biographical articles about living persons are particularly high – see WP:BLP. Dolphin (t) 07:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality (2)

I’ve never read a more one-sided article. No opportunity has been overlooked to be biased. Shameful. Boscaswell talk 11:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

"With RAN"

The photo is captioned: "Kelly with the RAN in 2011". Who is RAN? If it's Royal Australian Navy, the article does not mention anything about his military service. Is the article deficient, or is the caption misleading? If he wasn't in the navy, it wouldn't be right to say that he was "with" the navy. --49.255.252.131 (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd second this as a matter of concern; he seems to be wearing military camo, and there is some military paraphernalia in the background. My thoughts also went to 'Kelly was in the Navy?' Given that he was elected to Parliament in 2010, he cannot have been a currently enlisted person in 2011. (Constitution has something to say about that, IIRC). Reading the file info on the pic, it seems that it was a group pic taken while he was visiting a US Navy vessel. (Source is: US Pacific Fleet) Perhaps the title could be re-worded to something like "Kelly while visiting a US navy location." to remove confusion? (Better still, find a neutral pic. Just sayin'.) Wayne 10:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
PS to my above post: After posting I had a look at the original on Flikr. Account is indeed owned by US Pacific Fleet. Caption reads: "Participants from the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program socialise with members of the Chief Petty Officer's Mess in HMAS Sydney." Pics in background are indeed Aust Navy material, so I guess it was taken on Board HMAS Sydney. Nevertheless I still feel the caption needs amending, and indeed a better pic should be found. Wayne 11:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Supports integrity commission bill

Please put in the first 'positions' section, after the bit about the indigenous recognition in the constitution:

Kelly supported Helen Haines' integrity commission bill.[1]

Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not going to make that change. As I understand it, the vote discussed in that ref was "a motion calling for an urgent debate on an integrity commission bill in the House of Representatives." rather than the bill itself. That is to say that Haines 'moved' for a change in the order of business (which is why it required an absolute majority of all members, rather than just of those present). I'm not saying that Kelly doesn't support the bill, just that this vote wasn't on the bill. Wayne 23:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Appointed to social media inquiry

Please put in Craig_Kelly#Leader_of_the_United_Australia_Party:

Kelly, who has been permanently banned from Facebook, has been appointed by the crossbench to a parliamentary committee looking into social media and online safety.[2]

Thank you. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done However I removed the clause about 'by the crossbench' because reffed source states appointment was brought as "a motion in the House of Representatives by the assistant minister to the deputy prime minister, Kevin Hogan." Also added mention that 2 Opposition MPs were appointed, per same ref, for context. Wayne 23:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bannister, Maeve (25 November 2021). "Coalition MP crosses floor over watchdog". St George & Sutherland Shire Leader. Retrieved 25 November 2021.
  2. ^ Taylor, Josh (3 December 2021). "Craig Kelly: MP banned from Facebook appointed to parliament's social media inquiry". Guardian Australia. Retrieved 3 December 2021.

Putting forward 2 bills

Please add the following to the article, under the "Leader of the UAP" section:

Kelly plans to put forward two bills in the last two sitting weeks of parliament - one aimed at curtailing the powers of the Immigration Minister to cancel visas, in the wake of the Djokovic visa controversy, and another against 3-dose domestic COVID-19 vaccine passports. Kelly has said that if any sitting MP rebels against their party and votes with his bills, the UAP will not encourage voters to put the sitting MP last on their ballots in the 2022 election.[1]

Thank you. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think what a member claims they will do at some point in the future is worth adding to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As this is evidently not uncontroversial, a consensus needs to be developed first. PianoDan (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Murphy, Katherine (1 February 2022). "Craig Kelly floats preference offer for Coalition MPs who break ranks in parliament". Guardian Australia. Retrieved 1 February 2022.

Adding POV template

As I agree with many here who have stated that there seems to be WP:NPOV issues on this article I'm adding Template:POV on this article. My motivation for this is that there are many statements that only represent the opinion of one side of arguments, with citations being majority/exclusively from one point of view. Adding this template is not to start a witch hunt by any means, but rather an invitation from all points of view to add their respective views and citations so we don't create echo-chambers. If you disagree with me placing the template at the time of posting, please adhere to the guidelines listed here before removing the designation. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 20:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Which side? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I tend not to speak in terms of sides but it's pretty obvious to me most of the article is written by no one but political opponents in the way it's phrased, cited, written, etc. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 01:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
But you specifically said "one side of arguments", so you DO speak in terms of sides. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
What I meant is that I don't speak in terms of sides as in political parties vs. each other for example, when it comes to WP:NPOV obviously there are sides to any discussion or dispute. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 11:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
We also talk specifics. Therefore you must provide specific examples of POV (which you have yet to do) and provide references that support the problem. You don't post a template and invite others to comment as that would be drive-by tagging, which is strongly discouraged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Yup I'll give specifics when I get around to it but it seemed pretty obvious to me what the main problems with the article were, hence why I added it in advance. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 11:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
To add to that, considering it's a BLP article the standards of content, proper objective phrasing and neutrality should have a higher burden. One could consider some edits to be defamatory/libelous so it seemed to me to warrant urgent attention. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 11:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
So please outline some specific items in the next couple of days then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so as no specific statements have been put forward I've removed the template. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Casliber, as the NPOV template has been removed, does that mean that I can re-open my edit request above for the inclusion of the IPEA investigation of Kelly's travel? Or do I need to seek further comments on the talk page before I can re-open this? Thanks! -159.196.100.171 (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
You'll still need to get consensus for that edit as said by ScottishFinnishRadish above yes, that's unrelated to the NPOV template. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 13:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
It's in a reliable source (The Guardian), and the article has 26 kB (4111 words) readable prose size, so is fairly sizeable, hence the addition is only small. On those grounds there is nothing to prevent it being added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair, no objections from my side. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Your thoughts? Courtesy ping since you wanted consensus for the change. ★Ama Talk Ping Please 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no opinion. My close was procedural, as you had said As there's already concerns over growing WP:NPOV issues on this article I don't feel comfortable implementing your edit without prior consensus from the community. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

IPEA investigation of travel

Please add the following to the article, in either the 'Leader of the UAP' section or the 'COVID-19' section:

"Kelly charged taxpayers for flights and the use of Comcar to attend anti-vaccine mandate and anti-lockdown protests in Melbourne in November and December 2021, and is being investigated by the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority as to whether it was an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. Kelly argues that it was related to parliamentary business due to his private members' bill on vaccine passports.[1]"

Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: As there's already concerns over growing WP:NPOV issues on this article I don't feel comfortable implementing your edit without prior consensus from the community. I'll leave the matter open for another editor to implement/not implement. ★Ama TALK CONTRIBS 20:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Knaus, Christopher (7 April 2022). "Craig Kelly billed taxpayers to fly to Melbourne anti-lockdown rallies". Guardian Australia. Retrieved 17 April 2022.
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It does not appear that there is consensus to include this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
There is some support for this addition expressed in the below section, as it is a minor update, cited to a reliable source. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2022 (U
 Not done: The editors below are all EC and can implement the edit if they think there is consensus for it in the existing discussion, which they probably know better than me. Courtesy ping @Amadeus1999, ScottishFinishReader, and Casliber: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Matt Kean is not a conservative

Please change "and his fellow conservative and NSW Energy and Environment Minister, Matt Kean," (near the end of the "Climate change and renewable energy" section) to just plain "NSW Energy and Environment Minister, Matt Kean", as reliable sources describe Kean as a member of the moderate faction [3], rather than the conservatives. Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Already done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


Jenny Ware

Please add to the Leader of the UAP section

In the 2022 election, Kelly won around 8% of the vote, and Jenny Ware, representing the Liberal Party, won Hughes.[1]

Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Trembath, Murray (21 May 2022). "Updated | Libs win Hughes". St George & Sutherland Shire Leader. Retrieved 21 May 2022.

National Director

Please add after the Leader of the UAP section:

Kelly has been appointed the National Director of the UAP.[1]

Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Of the universe (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Butler, Josh (20 June 2022). "UAP wins Victorian Senate seat as Clive Palmer persists with claims of 'electoral fraud'". Guardian Australia. Retrieved 20 June 2022.

Indigenous Voice to Parliament

Please change:

Kelly opposes the proposed First Nations National Constitutional Convention's voice to parliament described in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which intends to recognise Indigenous Australians in Australia's Constitution. He described it as "divisive", and as a reverse form of apartheid. He has suggested that he would actively campaign for the "No" side in a referendum for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.[1]

To:

Kelly opposes the proposed First Nations National Constitutional Convention's voice to parliament described in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which intends to recognise Indigenous Australians in Australia's Constitution. He described it as "divisive", and as a reverse form of apartheid. He has suggested that he would actively campaign for the "No" side in a referendum for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.[2]

Thank you. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Murphy, Katharine (10 July 2019). "Craig Kelly says he could 'campaign for the no side' on Indigenous recognition". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 July 2019.
  2. ^ Murphy, Katharine (10 July 2019). "Craig Kelly says he could 'campaign for the no side' on Indigenous recognition". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 July 2019.
 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craig_Kelly/Archive_1&oldid=1204250832"