Talk:George Christensen

Christensen as editor of The Student Advocate

I refer to the information in this article, about questionable content that got published in conservative uni newsletter, The Student Advocate, when Christensen was editor. The length of detail that User:202.144.180.57 keeps adding to the article is, in my opinion, too lengthy/wordy/detailed given the connection Christensen has to it. So, without wishing to defend Christensen, I'm calling User:202.144.180.57's additions not worth keeping in the article in line with the WP:UNDUE guideline. I also have a problem with the exhaustive detail added in the edits. Anyone who's interested can easily go to the many sources provided if they wish to know more. Please, User:202.144.180.57 or anyone else, if you disagree let's have the discussion here and not keep reverting edits in the article. Donama (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article already covers the incident, and the added detail is a definite violation of undue weight. Frickeg (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, who could have believed so much emphasis on such a small player in political life. User:202.144.180.57 needs to take a Bex and have a good lie down. Jherschel (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To the IP, who is claiming that "slurs against Jews" is defamatory, they should read the references, all of which confirm that's what they were. Frickeg (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Issue of alleged "slurs"

In that article it states: "Christensen gained national media attention during the 2010 federal election campaign as attention was drawn to "questionable material" published by Christensen in the 1990s in The Student Advocate, a conservative university newsletter. The newsletter articles contained slurs against Jews, gays and women, with one 1998 article describing women as "stupid"." Firstly the term "questionable material" is subjective even if referenced to a media source. Secondly, the comment relating to the "slurs against Jews" is defamatory and untrue (if you read the article written by Christensen which has been referenced). Finally, the issue of there being "slurs against... women" has been taken out of context as it was clearly an article written as satire which is also referenced in the Daily Mercury news report. The validity of the defamatory content in the Wikipedia article has not really been evidenced apart from pointing to mainstream media reports which are also defamatory. The proposed modifications are factual and referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.144.180.57 (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise here, which will hopefully suit. Frickeg (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Tweets

Added a crucial detail to passage on #illridewithyou for understanding his tweets. According to some news reports, the woman who started this hashtag, is a white anti-white racist, an autoracist. This discovery, true or not, is what Christensen referred to in his tweet; he did not made this up from thin air as the passage has been suggesting for lack of providing background information. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section

Wikipedia style is to avoid Controversy/Criticism sections and to include the info in the main biography. This is to avoid the section just becoming a list of one-sentence-paragraphs of outrageous material and counter-claims. Ashmoo (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved but George Christensen is moved to George Christensen (footballer) and DAB page is created at base name. (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

---

George Christensen (politician) → George Christensen – Move the politician as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and move existing subject at George Christensen (the deceased footballer) to George Christensen (footballer) or similar. Politican has significantly higher page views, even without the large spikes. The currently serving politician is the far more likely search term for the name, particularily given controversial statements and policy views in slim majority Australian government. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, but only because there is no primary topic. George Christensen should be a disambiguation page; George Christensen should be moved to George Christensen (footballer) as proposed. StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm suggesting the politican fits the criteria for PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – needs at least a multiple RM proposal to be well-formed. I'd still oppose as no-primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The page views demonstrate the politician is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially considering the football player occupies the base title. No evidence from the two previous opposes that this isn't PT Zarcadia (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the right wing Aussie politician is only WP:RECENT and local, but support move of George Christensen (footballer) (and businessmen) also local, to US, and creation of a dab page featuringas the 3rd entry this man who gets more hits in Google Books than the other two combined. George Christensen (broadcaster) should redirect to Radio 1 FM (Gambia). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and support creation of a disambiguation page per StAnselm, Dicklyon and In ictu oculi. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per primary topic. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and support creation of a disambiguation page (the footballer is not the primary topic) Kerry (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Could the oppose voters explain why they don't think the politician qualifies as PRIMARY? -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • As per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, the determination of the primary topic (if any) is made by the consensus of editors, which is the purpose of the conversation we are having here. Personally, I don't think the politician qualifies as primary because (again per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY) he is relevant only to certain groups (Australians, and I say this as an Australian myself) and his prominence is relatively recent (pageview spikes when he says something controversial) but not a lot of sustained interest in him otherwise. Kerry (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
      • And because I think it's pointless to argue over "which is primary". If one candidate is primary, then (by definition of what we mean by primary) almost all of us should immediately agree on it. If we have to have a long argument, then none of the candidates is primary and disambiguation is the right choice. Kerry (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
        • That's fine, I was just inquiring. Even if you take out the spikes in viewership, the politician is still well ahead, but understand your points. Thanks for your input. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support move of the footballer but oppose move of the politician (and note that the multi-move notice does now appear at Talk:George Christensen#Move discussion in progress). An interesting case of the problem with page views. Agree that the controversy should be accepted as evidence of no primary topic, perhaps not the best possible evidence, but in this case far better evidence than that provided by page views. Overall conclusion, no primary topic, so DAB required at the base name. Andrewa (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Christensen (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826220253/http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/TheNationalsParliamentaryTeam.aspx to http://www.nationals.org.au/OurTeam/TheNationalsParliamentaryTeam.aspx#CHRISTENSEN

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) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Puffery in early years & background

I just wanted to flag that the section under "early years & background" appeared to be pretty much copied verbatim from Christensen's own materials[1] - with a dose of puffery, selective facts, and inadequate citations. I've made a number of changes today, trying to improve accuracy and remove spin.[2] . Still working on it, but thought it was worth mentioning the issue in case you wanted to discuss.Powertothepeople (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm also wondering about bias in some of the other sections... for example, under his third term there is mention of "extensive campaigns against him and the Liberal National Party from the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, unions, and political activist group, GetUp!." Ummm... it *was an election*... current wording infers christensen was somehow unfairly "targeted" when it is in fact just the normal political process. Powertothepeople (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Organisation of information along theme or date?

I am wondering if some of the content on this page would better be organised by theme than linear time line. Christensen is a very outspoken person which garners quite a lot of attention, with many incidents over time, however many of these incidents could be summarised under a few themes. 1) Criticism of Islam, 2) Support for the sugar industry, 3) Support for corporal punishment. Just thinking in terms of a better way of communicating the information rather than this kind of list of what happened. Dates would still be included, just within each subheading. Thoughts? Powertothepeople (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is full of trivial crap

• HiLo48 I deleted this bit of trivial crud. It was noted in the media that Christensen chose to have his surgery in an Islamic country despite previously aligning himself with anti-Islamic causes.I found no other sources backing it up. It is against policy on bios for living persons. It needs to go. HiLo how do you justify its inclusion and many other examples in the article? And please be civil and focus on content.Merphee (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• HiLo48 All you seem to do is revert. Then when I take it to talk. you refuse to engage in discussion. Would you talk content here please. Otherwise your reverts of perfectly good edits based on policy is very disruptive and wasting my time.Merphee (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There is always judgement in these calls. I base my judgement on many years of experience on Wikipedia and on having edited thousands of articles, and seen how other people treat content here. Given Christensen's very public position on certain issues, it seems reasonable to me to reflect in the article many aspects of his behaviours and comments in relation to those issues. He is a controversial politician. We need to show why. Your edits appeared to remove some of that evidence.

BTW - A very common approach to editing here is Bold - Revert- Discuss, not Bold - Revert - Edit war - Discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo48Yeah that's why I brought it to the talk page. No, we don't need to use Wikipedia as a platform to try and embarrass or shame or show this politician or any politician that "they are controversial" or not. That's not our job and that's not what policy says. What I'm doing here is removing trivial shit from his article. The edit you reverted is in a single source on one day and never heard of again. Will it pass the 10 year test you like applying to other articles HiLo? How is it noteworthy enough to include? Coatracking?Merphee (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I said. I generally find it pointless trying to discuss things with people who do that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ha, no I quoted you saying " Given Christensen's very public position on certain issues, it seems reasonable to me to reflect in the article many aspects of his behaviours and comments in relation to those issues. He is a controversial politician. We need to show why." Why do we need to use Wikipedia to show him or any living politicians up to be controversial?Merphee (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The edit I deleted was a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SPECULATION. It is not what the source says. To be clear it is this edit we are discussing. "It was noted in the media that Christensen chose to have his surgery in an Islamic country despite previously aligning himself with anti-Islamic causes"

HiLo48Based on policy we are told to delete this type of poorly sourced shit immediately. I want to comply with policy, not your wishes HiLo. Please discuss or I'm reverting based on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.Merphee (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC

It's extremely difficult to have a sensible conversation with an editor who makes several posts in a row. I know I've tried to explain this to you before. See earlier "pointless" comment. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

What you do is highly disruptive and is wasting my time following me around to articles too can be seen as harassment and hounding. Again, it is clear you HiLo do not discuss content issues here. This point I made and based my removal of the poorly sourced synthesised crud is very clear in policy. "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." The cycle does not apply in these cases.Merphee (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not following you anywhere. You are turning up at articles that have been on my Watchlist for years, and which have been largely stable for most of that time. I can't avoid noticing your somewhat dramatic changes, always in one political direction. I am very proud of the fact that I have been accused of taking sides in political articles in Wikipedia by Liberal and Labor supports in Australia, and by Democrat and Republican supporters in the US, for the past three national elections in both countries. An editing approach such as yours stands out like a sore thumb. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again User:HiLo48 you don't take park in discussion of policy or content after asking to take it to talk. That's what stands out like a sore thumb. It's highly disruptive and I'm not wasting time with you anymore. Funny though how someone supposedly sooooo very experienced and knowledgeable as you say you are was not aware of the policies I pointed out above that you refuse to discussed. Just proves my point that the amount of years on Wikipedia means absolutely nothing. The fact that you were banned for a month for personally attacking and belittling others certainly does stand out though. Hard working administrators don't ban editors for a month for personal attacks lightly. You do it every day thinking you're funny. It's pathetic. You are also blatantly biased with your editing and this affects article quality and creates biased articles for Wikipedia readers.Merphee (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)  

You are lying about me again. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ya...sure I am HiLo. Next time you drag someone to talk can I suggest actually trying to discuss edits based on policy rather than big noting yourself delusionally and skirting around direct questions (as can easily be seen in our thread). It's highly disruptive.Merphee (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• George Christensen 2017.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Philippines travel content now all in one section

PerpetuityGrat, do not edit war this content please. It is well sourced and will remain. It is now in one section, not three. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ratel: not to be rude, but reverting one edit does not constitute an edit war. I saw your edits and they are fine. The article needs a massive cleanup in my opinion. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The "Member for Manila" headline is sensationalist editorialising and not in line with BLP Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)