Talk:Gerard Rennick

Conflict of interest editing

Single purpose editor Irving1110 is asked to assess the rules of WP:COI before editing further. Thanks. Ratel (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and disputed content

Howdy hello Playlet, Chhota naatak, DustySnip and a few IP's. I have full protected this page since y'all are edit warring over its contents. You need to discuss your dispute now. Please talk here about the edits you've made, and why, and try to come to an agreement. If you can't, please seek dispute resoloution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I have been willing to accept edits by the various editors, and I have tried to edit in good faith. There seems to be a number of editors who all seem to be single page editors with potential WP:COI. There are significant quotes that are being removed, and information that is being added that is not backed up by the sources, as well as large chunks of speeches that I have attempted to edit down to manageable size.Playlet (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Why are twitter postings being used as references - doesn’t this violate Wikipedia’s own posting rules that says social media should not be taken as a source. This includes blogs that reference twitter posts. It’s pure speculation as to what Andrew Johnston was thinking - Wikipedia should not be putting words in his mouth. The link showing Rennick questioning the CSIRO in estimates is being used as a source for Rennick questioning the Bom. This is a violation of the parliamentary privileges act as it is deliberately misleading. The climate denialist tag is not a defining characteristic as referred by previous user. Rennick has never denied the climate is changing. Rennick said Australia’s cities are being overstocked, in regards to congestion and overdevelopment on city fringes, not Australia as a country. Rennick did not beat two sitting senators since he only ran in the Liberal positions. There was only one sitting Liberal Senator whose position was contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:C03:C416:90FF:2CDA:5EC6:D474 (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to raise each issue separately. I can tell you that on the first one, Twitter is not being used as a source, the ABC is (and ABC is not a blog). That report references a tweet by Rennick, which is fair enough. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Reference 15 has a link to Rennick questioning the CSIRO. He has not accused them of destroying records so why is that estimates footage being included when there is no discussion about this. This is in direct violation of the parliamentary privileges act as the statement is misleading.

Reference 17 does use a twitter source. Andrew Johnson says no such thing and it is purely speculative to put words in his mouth.

Reference 6 quotes an unnamed source that says Rennick knocked off Barry O’Sullivan. This is incorrect since Rennick did not contest the Nationals position. Given the source is unnamed and incorrect it is hardly reliable. As the article states Rennick did not respond before the deadline but yet the ABC ran the article anyway for some arbitrary deadline despite the fact it is unethical to run a story without giving the subject of the article time to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:E02:F973:D0D5:4462:E271:AE53 (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@ItWasPredestined you are attempting to change information that has been broadly accepted by the editors on this page. The only exception is a variety of sockpuppets who have all been editing this section in a very similar way to your recent edits. Please discuss your issues here before changing the article. Playlet (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@playlet. I was just going to edit the page although it appears any edits you do not agree with get reverted so I thought I’d take it to the talk page. However the above IP aDdress seems to cover most of important issues. Although you have not responded to any of them. So I ask how are users supposed to discuss issues when u won’t respond to glaring issues already presented?Thompson894 (talk) 07:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thompson894 This is not only me there are other editors reverting the work of the several accounts that were editing the same sort of things that were being edited by @ItWasPredestined Those accounts have now been suspended for being sockpuppets. To go through the list that was provided above

1. Regarding footnote 17, social media is not being taken as a source, It is The Guardian that has used the tweet of a prominent journalist in their reporting, in the way that the news would ask for a quote from any significant individual in a news story

2. It is not Wikipedia speculating on Jonston's thoughts, rather it is recording the way The Guardian chose to report it

3. Regarding footnote 6, fixed the article to better reflect your issues with it

4. Footnote 15 deals with Rennick's misunderstanding of scientific theory, which is where it is in the article. Footnote 11 deals with the destroying dataPlaylet (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @playlet upon conducting some research on various Wikipedia policy in particular BLP policy and have outlined below instances where the current version (almost entirely included by yourself) breaches such policy. Considering this is a biography of living persons this must be addressed immediately. I have taken the time to explain all issues within the current version of the article in detail to avoid confusion. I expect nothing less in return to achieve a constructive dialogue rather than the issues that have previously occurred on this page. Reference 11 1. Repeated use of the word claim, particularly in the climate and childcare section of the article. This is an expression of doubt and implies lack of credibility in some instances where used. See WP:CLAIM and adjust your edits accordingly. Please use phrases such as stated, said etc.

2. The sentence that states “Rennick has been called a right-wing climate denialist” is misleading. It fails to include who called him that, in this is instance the opposition members (Labor). The inclusion of the opposition using name calling renders this quote relatively unimportant see below for explanation. See WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRYPICKING. It should also be noted such contentious labels should not be included see: WP:LABEL. However, if Labor is instead quoted rather than “some” this is null point. The quote will also require the inclusion of the author as per WP:CITEYPE. Please note in-text attribution. This is not a general reference and the author of the quote (Labor) must be included.

2.1 I would suggest the complete removal of the opinion of the opposition government. If we are going to take every opposition government statement and place them into all Wikipedia sources, we may find that libellous material is allowed to be included in BLP frequently simply because the opposition stated it. For example, do we include name calling that occurs from members of all side of politics in every politician’s wiki page?

If you have another source where individuals who are not the oppositions members label him as such please provide these instead. At the very least it should read as “the opposition government has called Mr Rennick a right-wing climate denialist”.

3. Second part of the same sentence linking the opinion of opposition members “stated above” to the questioning of scientific method is also not allowed by Wikipedia policy. Please provide a source that links the two or separate the two sentences. Particularly because the source provided does not. It states Mr Rennick said that climate change was “a complex issue worthy of debate and scrutiny” See WP:SYNTH.

3.2 Alternatively include Mr Rennick quote rather than quotes of the opposition ie. Read as “Mr Rennick has stated that “Climate change is worthy of scrutiny and debate” and has subsequently questioned the BOM on….”

Reference 15/11 4. The use of the word basic is a label. I hardly consider the Heisenberg uncertainty principal a basic scientific theory. However regardless of what was being discussed in the questioning the use of the word basic is an opinion and shouldn’t be included. It should read “misunderstanding of some scientific principals” instead. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:LABEL 5. Following from the above point with regard to the comment “Corrected on basic misunderstanding of some scientific theory”. This quote comes from a blog. blogs can never be used as a source about living people even if the author is an expert. See WP:BLOGS. 5.1 Until a more reliable source be found supporting the quote (although the use of the words such as basic must be removed as per reasoning above regardless of sourcing) this should not be included.

Footnote 17 6. “BOM CEO Andrew Johnson indicate[d], politely and not in so many words, [he has] no idea what [he is] talking about" is a twitter quote inserted into a news article.” This quote should be removed. If you wish to make reference to the response find Andrew Johnsons actual words reference that. However, until that is done this should not be included See: WP:SPS. Just because it is inserted into an article does not exempt it from this status. Its an interpretation from a journalist. See WP:SPS. For definition of self-published source note inclusion of twitter, Facebook and other social media. Also see WP:LINKSTOAVOID. The Guardian opinions have been contested on Wikipedia see {{WP:RSP}}. The twitter quote is not the story but an opinion.

footnote 6 7. Allegation of election tampering. Please provide another source, any allegations such as this require more than one third party source see WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Therefore it should not be included unless another reliable reference is found supporting these allegations.

I would argue it is not “broadly accepted information” when by the looks of things only two users in yourself and @ratel seem to be agreeing. The undoing of information by @crazybot and @materialscientist does not show consensus seeing as how both commonly revert changes where they believe was not thoroughly explained, similar with a few other users who have done the same. Considering there is at least 3 who have expressed problems, myself, the sock puppet as well as numerous IP addresses. I think the opinion expressed needs to be discussed properly and addressed to reach consensus before refusing to acknowledge an argument. Footnotes 29/30/31 (other positions) 8. State government should be changed to Labor state government. The quote reference who Mr Rennick accused. He clearly is not accusing the LNP and should therefore be explicitly expressed who is referring to. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/tableOffice/questionsAnswers/2006/30-2006.pdf. Regardless this link shows that the Labor state government were the ones responsible.

9. When referencing the opposition to the Adoption of poker machines it should include reference to his opposition to the adoption considering services such as maternity wards have been removed and denied. This is important and should be included.

10. The fact that Mr Rennick should was a candidate in 2016 but failed should be included also. This is involved in his political career and should be included in that selection. It should be noted with regard to the donations that it doesn’t take into account donatinos prior to 2016. Mr Rennick may have donated to the party before then however party donations were not recorded prior to 2016. This should be noted in the article if the paragraph about donations is included.
Reference. (https://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/SenateCandidates-20499.htm)

@playlet despite policy stating to remove all contentious material before discussion in particular with BLP articles rather than undoing your work and fixing the policy issues myself and likely causing edit warring as seen on this page in the past, I will give some time for you to address the above policy concerns and fix the information included in the article to be in line with Wikipedia policy. I would also ask the opinions stated in the second part be discussed as this is what the talk page is for. After about a week however, if nothing has been addressed or changed with regard to all point 1-10, I will address each point individually with regard to the policy breach within the article. Based on how frequently you edit this page I do not see a week as unreasonable. If I change according to above explanation, I expect user such as yourself or @ratel hope to not revert changes and simply write “unexplained changes” as has been done in the past with the sock puppets. Right or wrong of the users some of the changes made were explained and simply reverted without a proper rebuttal or explanation of why the information should be included or how it follows Wikipedia policy. I have numbered each point to make it easy to address each point individually. Each individual point is made very clearly above any edits I make with regard to the above point are explained here. apologies for not linking the policies correctly. the links do not seem to work Thompson894 (talk) 07:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thompson894:@ItWasPredestined: Before we go any further you should declare any WP:COI since you seem driven to edit almost exclusively on this page. Your edits also mirror almost exactly a series of usernames that were blocked for WP:SOCK (see here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irving1110. Despite other editors reverting many of the edits that you and the other sockpuppets have made you keep coming back to try and edit things in the same fashion.Playlet (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Fail to see why Rennick’s response to Albanese accusation was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompson894 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I will endevour to deal with your issues point by point.
1. Removed claimed, but with regards to the BoM It is important that it is conveyed that Rennick is a lone voice even within the Coalition.
2. He is a denier of basic climate science and it is widespread in the community. I have fixed it to represent the broad view that he is a climate denier. Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the section of him challenging Albo to a debate as not so relevant, since that para is mostly about the view of his climate change denial in the community.
3. No idea what you are talking about
4. Put back in without 'basic' It is significant since Rennick has used this principle to back up his opinions
5. It is based on the video which appears there and I have added Crikey as a source.
6. Fixed the quote which is an important POV by an editor at a major Australian newspaper, which is that Rennick doesn't seem to understand the science that he is using as the basis for this opinions. Fixed the language to avoid the issues you raised
7. The allegation is not election tampering, but the source was good enough to be reported in the ABC.
9. They are both there. I have no issue with them being there. But they are two different areas of policy and I fail to understand why they should be in the same para? Also Labor should not be mentioned unless you have a source to show that he targets Labor for these problems. At the moment all we have is the state government.
10. You want to include that please do.
You have not addressed if there is WP:COI and if you have a relationship to the other sockpuppets since your edits run along very similar themes.Playlet (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

if the quote about the response is not relevant albanesse comment is just as unecessary. as per wikipedia policy if an individual is accused of something the individuals response MUST be included. to state that if you cannot reference twitter then i cannot reference facebook is null, the facebook reference is gerarsd actual words whereas the adam morton posts an opinion which when i had an issue was not named. The twitter reference not however is not relevant given Andrew johnson actual words are properly referenced within their now, which you unjustifiably removed. i appreciate the addition of a source for the misunderstandings and have thus kept in latest update although hope that stating the exact scientific theory is a valid compromise. i ahve also moved the point as the Heisenberg principle was in relation to csiro questioning not BOM questioning as is implied by the previous version. Thompson894 (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

the source for labor explicitly states corrupt labor government which needs to be included. with respesct to the closing of the maternity wards as per the link given that the nationals held the government for about 2 years in that entire period and was responsible for only 5 of the 34 closed i think it should still be included. however untill further discussion will leave out.

• Thompson894 (talk · contribs), you should not use 1-day old undated Facebook statements by the subject as a source. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ratel (talk · contribs) the letter is a response and will not be changing. i will remove the lack of response however as that is a valid point. Thompson894 (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Will not be changing" — So you now admit that you are Rennick, by making ownership pronouncements about his statements? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes will not be changing? You cannot change a hard copy of a letter. Just as Albanese comment about conspiracy theory will not be changing??? I fail to see how u draw your conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thompson894 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Playlet (talk · contribs) please read above comments regarding adam morton and his OPINION. as said above andrew johnsons exact words are included and referenced. the opinion and interpretation is not longer relevant. Thompson894 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If it will shut you up I am happy to leave Morton's comments out, but the fact that he is basing his arguments on science that he clearly does not understand has to be included.
Also please keep to the accepted Wikipedia format for these discussions. It is not hard to learn, and it makes understanding your long posts almost bearable.
You have also failed to respond to WP:COI and WP:SOCK please do so to facilitate open and honest discussionPlaylet (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No to both accusations. And the science misunderstanding I am willing to include however the specific theory he was corrected on must be included. If u watch the clip it does not show a he doesn’t understand the theory I might add but rather shows that the theory isn’t used practicality. Although willing to forgo this so long as the specific theory is included rather then just scientific theory. It should also be seperate as rennick a critisms of the BOM are based on practice not theory. The statement you reference is with reference to the Csiro so needs to be seperate. I included the specific theory in the very next paragraph if you wish to change that to misunderstanding of the heisenberg principle plz do. Rennick response must also be included for. You cannot simply add an accusation and not include the individuals responseThompson894 (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

To the IPs editing, your edits have introduced problems such as WP:POV issues potential WP:COI the editing has removed sourced materials and have added ad hominem unsourced attacks and have removed the links to the sources and a heading for no apparent reason. Please read the above discussion before editing again Playlet (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

edit warring 2

I semi protected cause the most disruption seemed to be from unregistered users. @Playlet and Ratel:, I can't tell if y'all are edit warring. If you are, please stop. If not, thanks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring 3

I have attempted to make the article more compact. I have removed many elements because it is based on one item in Hansard. Not every thought bubble of Rennick's in parliament is deserving of its own section in his article. Please explain your edits if you want to make significant edits. I am willing to discuss the edits, but shutting down all discussion is not that way to do it.Playlet (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My reading of the Climate Change section is that the tone somewhat legitimates Rennick's views.

For example, this sentence:

> He has questioned the Australian government's Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) about its falsifying of climate data, and has promoted the conspiracy theory that the bureau is tampering with climate data to "perpetuate global warming hysteria", as part of a "global warming agenda".

The phrasing of this sentence implies that BoM has falsified data. There has been no evidence to date to suggest BoM has falsified data. Adding the response from BoM would provide needed context. Gday Anon (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Gerard Rennick.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

A note about this article was posted at WP:FTN. I tried to improve the section but am unsure if the second paragraph is still due, after the now-concise (and WP:YESPOV-compliant) first paragraph. After initially tagging the part about thermometers, I removed it, since it wasn't supported by secondary sources and seemed undue: accusations were made, an apparently non-consequential technical issue has improved (not validating his conspiracy theories), basically nothing happened but noise (reminescent of teach the controversy). Then remains the pseudoscientific claim about terrestrial plant death, that the extant source already puts in context, so I tried to make the text reflect that, but I admit not being familiar with that source. —PaleoNeonate – 10:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)