Jump to content

Talk:John Brogden (politician)

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

Untitled

[edit]

Hmmm, ABC Local Radio's PM current affairs programme tonight said that Brogden's alleged misbehaviour occurred on July 29, 2005. This Wikipedia article currently states August 5. Can anybody confirm? --Humehwy 09:15, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

It is disputed - the papers have also noticed this contradiction. Ambi 13:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality

[edit]

Stating that calling someone a mail-order bride is "racist" is clearly pov in my opinion, so I have removed it. In the UK probably a majority of "mail-order Brides" are white (from Eastern Europe). It was clearly rude and inaccurate, but readers should be allowed to make up their own minds what other adjectives to apply to it, not instructed to follow a Wikipedia line. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. 82.35.34.11 16:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but he was almost universally condemned for it. Have noted this. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think you acted in bad faith by accusing me of bias. I reverted your edit because it was a racist remark. The Carrs interpreted it such, Brogden accepted such, and the media depicted such. And it is particular naïveté to say that the term "mail-order bride" cannot be used in a racist context because the (you assume) majority are white. Whites, particularly those Slavic or of the Caucasus, are as frequently the subject of racism as others', and this term implicitly afirms such. Nevertheless, I am satisfied with Ta bu's revision (thanks :)). In future, don't be so accusatory.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 04:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the complete comment - "ship his mail-order bride back to where she came from, for all I care" - was indeed said in a racist context.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article is far from neutral and I reject Ambi's indiscriminate reversion of my recent changes. Just because the Carrs or others may have said that they interpreted it as racist doesn't make it one. Many did not believe that it was a racist remark - it is no more racist than calling somebody a prostitute - it is a neutral term and depending on one's upbringing and beliefs, it may be considered an insult. It this case it clearly was intended as insult. Some say that it was actually an insult not towards Helena, but towards Bob Carr in a quiet reference to rumoured closet homosexuality
I also find the phrase 'almost universally condemned' to be ridiculous - either it was univeral or it wasn't! I think it is more NPOV to say 'some journalists/reporters/editorials/newspapers instead of grossly generalising.
Furthermore, I believe that it is an important fact that he knew the journalists in question and they were not just strangers he met - I think it should be up to the journalists in question whether they took offence to Brogden's actions. Does anyone here actually know the reactions of the journalists? Do we know for sure that he seriously propositioned them or perhaps it was just a very unwise drunken jibe.
In all these cases its best to be neutral and let the reader draw their own conclusions. 60.225.92.127 08:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, it was racist and even he accepted as such. I'm willing to bet it wasn't meant in a truly hateful manner, given that he was drunk and we all say nasty things, but it was definitely insulting, offensive and highly inappropriate for such a high-powered politician. I suggest you quit flogging this dead horse, seeing as no one but you thinks otherwise. misanthrope 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This line from the article gives me an amusing mental image: "Lateline reported that he pinched one journalist's behind, and propositioned the other". Does anyone else think this reads as "... and propositioned the other [journalist's behind]"? Hesperian 07:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. May be better to switch it around "Lateline reported that he propositioned one journalist and pinched the behind of another." Ambi 13:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed very loudly in an university library reading that. Thanks, you've made my day so far :). --Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
HAHA! Nicely spotted! misanthrope 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted Suicide

[edit]

Any credible information on the method yet? I'm seeing "alcohol stupor", "slit wrists"... Also, perhaps someone could change the main page article to reflect his suicide attempt. 203.45.114.193 22:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of adding in some info about the suicide attempt but I think that it could be premature. Even though wikipedia should attempt to report the facts "as they are" I think that it will be difficult to write about with appropriate sensitivity until some time has passed. Gil-Galad

The word that is coming out is now "attempted self-harm". I'm not sure how credible saying slit wrists are, however, I may be wrong. jockmonkey

Is there any confirmation that he "attempted suicide"? There is a considerable difference between self-harm (which has been reported in the media) and suicide/attempted-suicide. The article should reflect this. --Daveb 11:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source. Everything I've read has suggested that it was a suicide attempt - I have not seen anyone suggesting that he was just trying to cut himself. Ambi 11:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Barry O'Farrell's comments state self-harm - one could assume he is more in the know than speculating journos. There have been no official reports (medical/police/etc) stating attemoted suicide, to the best of my knowledge.
Again, there is a considerable difference between the concepts of self harm and attempted suicide (or attempted suicide and parasuicide for that matter), and until more facts come out we should assume the broader "self-harm". Your use of the term "just trying to cut himself" seems to demonstrate a limited knowledge of the issue of self harm.
--Daveb 11:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the context, it would appear that O'Farrell's comments were simply a polite way of putting that he'd attempted suicide. If you can't find media sources supporting this view, I'll be reverting again. Ambi 12:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a brave call. Nonetheless here the onus is on you to show supporting evidence (not just unsubstantiated media speculation) that the self-harm was more specifically self-harm directed at suicide. Of course, if you could show that the media have good reason to believe it was a suicide attempt that may do, but I have found nothing in the media to back up speculation that it may have been an attempted suicide. No family reports, no police reports, no medical reports... really nothing at all beyond what O'Farrel is on the record as saying.
Therefore, whilst we wait for more information we should use the broader term "self-harm", which can encompases attempted suicide. I have put in place a line to the effect that it suicide is a possibility but this has not been confirmed.
Stick the the known facts and not speculation. The article can always be updated to be more specific as more facts come to hand.
--Daveb 12:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:No original research. A Google News search for "john brogden" suicide reveals 190 articles noting that it was a suicide attempt. A Google News search for "john brogden" self-harm returns three articles - all of which still say he attempted suicide. It's not my job to prove that the media were right - we report on the general consensus, rather than trying to establish truth ourselves (that would be original research). I'm afraid you'll have to cite more than your own unsourced contention if you want it in the article - surely if there was any basis one journalist in the country would have reported it? But there isn't even that. Ambi 12:39, 31 August 2005 --129.78.228.114 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
The SMH, Age and other newspapers have all reported that he engaged in some form of self-harm; whether or not this was attempted suicide is currently unknown and no newspaper I have read has unequivocally stated that it was (the word "apparently" is the closest they seem to get). --Daveb 12:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of moving foward, I have changed the text to clarify that it has been widely reported that his self-harm was an attempted suicide, but that this is yet to be officially confirmed. This is hardly original research, rather a review of the current available information: a) The media are reporting it was an attempted suicide (reflected in the article); b) There is yet to be official confirmation of this (reflected in the article). --Daveb 12:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with that whatsoever. What I took issue with was claiming that it wasn't an attempted suicide. Ambi 13:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote: I never said it wasn't an attempted suicide; rather my point was that there was no confirmation that his self-harm was indeed attempted suicide (which is a subset of self-harm) and that as such we should not write as though it was an established fact. --Daveb 13:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind changing the title back when it's confirmed as a suicide? (From 220.238.233.226)
I doubt it will be confirmed as a suicide as he is still alive... it can be changed if/when it is ever confirmed to have been an attempted suicide otherwise it covers bases as it is. 129.78.228.114 03:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue

[edit]

The citation notation next to the O'Farrell quote is just a self-referential link that goes back to the top of the article page. Shouldn't it go directly to the website where it comes from? 23skidoo 04:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed current event tag

[edit]

This article isn't really current anymore, nothing in the news for about a week, so I've removed the current event tag -Werdna648 11:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Citing references

[edit]

I'm really quite shocked that despite the stated wikipedia policy for Biographies of Living Persons, (see top of page), the more scandalous matters described in this article are unreferenced. Who says that he said these things at a party? When did the ABC say that he pinched someone's bottom? Who is it claims that he was drug and alcohol affected when he cut his wrists? Who are the "some" that didn't like his policies?

--Amandajm 16:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the references in the reference section. There are no in line citations, as much of the material was written a while ago. However I don't think it's that bad: the sources can simply be read, and matched up to the material in the body of the article. Recurring dreams 22:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody just removed all of this stuff, but as it was well-referenced, I added it straight back. cojoco (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patron of Life line

[edit]

In April 2011, John Brogden was appointed as Patron of Lifeline - press release link http://www.lifeline.org.au/About-Lifeline/Media-Centre/Media-Releases/Media-Release-Files/John-Brogden-new-national-patron-for-Lifeline . I'll add this info to article, but how to add verification ? Is link to this article enough? Sorry I don't know the codes / shortcuts. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC) It's kind of there! Sorry, not quite right.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Brogden (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) 06:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Brogden_(politician)&oldid=1200377261"