Talk:Michael Danby/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anonymous persons cannot add "neutrality" tags to articles without explanation. I am removing the tag until an explanation is given. (Declaration of interest: Danby is my employer). Adam 15:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Over at the debate on "Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4", someone says that Danby is not only your employer, but also: "He is an ardent supporter of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which legalizes--under Australian law--the institutions and procedures as specified in an Executive Order by President Bush, which set up the torture regimes at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The act cites the relevant Executive Order by Bush by name, and also cites by name the lawless military detention system at Guantanamo Bay, to which that order gave rise. Danby officially spoke in Parliament for the (nominally) opposition Labor Party on behalf of this bill, which was put forward by the neo-con government of Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard." True or false? Don't you think this ought to be covered by the article?

I don't dignify LaRouchite slanders with a response. Adam 04:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A slander is by nature false, yes? So are you saying that Danby did not advocate the Anti-Terrorism Act?

Nor do I resond to questions from anonymous people. Adam 17:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am no longer anonymous: I have a Wikipedia logon now. Go ahead and explain to me whether the information on Danby's role in the Anti-Terrorism Act is incorrect. Also, explain why you, as an employee of Danby, should not be seen as promoting or electioneering for him, by attempting to present a non-critical Wikipedia article. I would suggest you let someone edit it who has no personal stake. --Weed Harper 00:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In response:

• The bill in question was a government bill which was passed with bipartisan support. It was opposed by (from memory) one Independent member in the House and about 10 minor party Senators. If this comment is to be made about Danby, it must also be made about all 149 MPs and 60-odd Senators who voted for it.
• It is not true that Danby personally has been criticised for voting for the bill, except in the sense that the far left (and LaRouchites) have criticised everyone who voted for it. Danby is being singled out for criticism by this LaRoucheite editor solely because he is Jewish.
• The bill was in any case a perfectly reasonable response to the threat of terrorism in Australia (following the Bali bombing), which can in no sense be described as "fascist" as the LaRoucheites pretend. That is why, after due parliamentary scrutiny, it was given bipartisan support.
• Yes I have a difficulty editing this article when Danby is both my employer and a personal friend. But the Danby article I wrote is exactly the same as the ones I wrote for all other backbench MPs, other than to note that he is the only Jewish MP. I have not added any material favourable to him. All I have done is remove LaRouche propaganda from the article. It probably would be better if someone else removed it, but whether it is removed by me or by someone else, it will continue to be removed. Adam 01:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article has now been protected. This is ridiculous. How strange that Adam's employer (and the only Jewish MP) is the one to be singled out for this - and right after the Lyndon LaRouche dispute, no less. Ambi 03:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at the page history Ambi. Weed Harper 14:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Weed Harper made the request for protection. AndyL 04:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danby singled himself out, by his particularly enthusiastic support for the bill. I wouldn't have know he was Jewish, if Adam hadn't mentioned it as often as possible -- Adam can't seem to respond to a disagreement without mudslinging. Everyone who challenges him turns into a far leftist, a LaRouchite, and an anti-Semite. In fact, the bill was opposed by civil libertarians of all kinds.

Adam says that the bill was perfectly reasonable. Now, help me out here -- the argument that it is perfectly reasonable to suspend civil liberties to protect us against terrorism -- doesn't that sound awfully familiar? Haven't we heard that one somewhere before? --Weed Harper 06:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it's the law you're disputing, take it somewhere else. For what it matters, I was against it. But the bill had bipartisan support, and many people spoke in support of it. The bill was controversial, but Danby's support of it wasn't controversial on its own. Ambi 06:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danby's philosophical roots

I am the one who posted the comment about Danby and the Anti-Terrorism Act, over at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4. Since Adam evidently wishes to debate the point, consider this:

Jabotinsky has his sympathisers in Australia. The Australia-Israel Review, for example (which now styles itself "The Review"), was founded by a fanatical Revisionist (as the followers of Jabotinsky were called), Robert Zablud. Former longtime AIR editor Michael Danby eulogised Zablud, whom he called the "organisational genius" behind the AIR, in the 19 September-2 October 1989 AIR, noting that Zablud's vision of Judaism was inspired by "his mentor Zeev Jabotinsky", whom Danby called "a much misunderstood centre-right Zionist ideologue". [1]

Who was Jabotinsky? He was the man whom Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion called "Vladimir Hitler." Ben-Gurion, who had a humanist conception of Zionism based on the greatest and most inspiring traditions of European culture (he learned Spanish so that he might read Don Quixote in the original), fought Jabotinsky at every turn.

Jabotinsky and the Revisionists aped the militaristic garb [2] and organizational structure of Mussolini's movement, and attempted to ward off criticism of Mussolini within the Jewish community:

"Jabotinsky became Mussolini’s defence attorney within the Jewish world. While he was visiting America in 1935 on a lecture tour he wrote a series of articles for New York’s Jewish Daily Bulletin, a short-lived English-language Zionist paper devoted exclusively to Jewish affairs. In the 1930s, most Jews followed the common usage and referred to the fight against Hitler as part of the “anti-Fascist struggle”; Jabotinsky was determined to put a stop to that, since he understood too well that as long as the Jews saw Hitler as another Fascist, they would never approve of the Revisionist orientation towards Mussolini." [3]

The admiration was reciprocated: Mussolini, in 1935, told David Prato, later to become chief rabbi of Rome, that: “For Zionism to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky.” --Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion – The Armed Prophet, p.46.

That should provide something to discuss on this page. --Herschelkrustofsky 02:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that all Zionists are fascists? While I am personally an opponent of Zionism I think that's somewhat of an extreme statement. You seem completely unaware of gradations within Zionism such as Revisionist Zionism (the movement founded by Jabotinsky) as opposed to Labour Zionism. Danby is a Zionist but what evidence do you have that he is a Jabotinskyist? AndyL 04:47, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is a nice irony in Herschelkrustofsky approvingly quoting Ben Gurion, when it is LaRouchite orthodoxy that all Zionists are fascists. Danby is of course a Labor Zionist and, in terms of Israeli politics, broadly a supporter of the Israeli Labor Party (more the Rabin wing than the Peres wing). He does believe that Jabotinsky is a misunderstood figure, although he would not defend Jabotinsky's flirtations with fascism. It is worth noting that Jabotinsky died in 1939, before the full implications of fascist politics for the Jewish people became entirely clear. Many people in the 1920s and 30s admired Mussolini without themselves being fascists. Anyway, none of this in any way sustains the allegation that Danby is a fascist. Adam 05:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It may not be my place to offer you boys advice, but I would suggest that you modify your approach in the following way: read the LaRouche movement's views on a given topic before you begin to issue proclamations about what it believes. Start with this,and this. Andy, you might want to try reading my posts twice, to be sure you understand them, before firing off a response. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Herschel, you should consider yourself fortunate in the fact that anyone bothers to read your posts once. Don't push your luck. AndyL 22:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Despite your flippancy, I think that anyone who reads my remarks and your response will have no difficulty in getting the point. --Herschelkrustofsky 22:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danby and anti-terrorism law

---

I have created a new article, Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004, to provide some background for some of this discussion. Adam 07:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You managed to omit this from your section on critics of the legislation:

The extraordinary success of LaRouche's campaign to dump Cheney in the U.S., echoed by the potency of the CEC's campaigns downunder, has the neo-conservatives in Australia climbing the walls. For example, the CEC ran an ad in the Melbourne Age newspaper on June 15, which called for the defeat of the latest "anti-terrorism" atrocity, the Anti-Terrorism Bill 2004, which legalizes, under Australian law, the Executive Order by which President Bush established the lawless, torture-ridden regime of Guantanamo Bay. The ad was signed by 90 prominent Australians, including the former chief of the defence force, General Peter Gration; the nation's top Islamic official, Imam T.H. Al-Hilali; and Ken Wriedt, former Cabinet minister under the 1972-75 nationalist Whitlam government. It provoked an hysterical freakout from LaRouche's longtime enemies in both the press and among the "anti-defamation" wing of Australia's neo-conservatives. The latter denounced the CEC for pushing "conspiracy theories with an anti-Semitic flavour," and as a "political cult." A stalwart of this lobby, longtime CEC/LaRouche opponent, Federal MP Michael Danby, ranted that LaRouche is a "fanatic" and called for the Parliament to investigate the CEC. [4] --Herschelkrustofsky 22:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't count LaRouche cranks among serious critics of anything. Adam 00:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two things. What campaign to dump Cheney, and what success? Secondly, Gration also later retracted his statement, claiming that he'd been misled, and he was pretty angry. Ambi 23:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My answer will be brief -- I'm still preoccupied with wrangling with Adam 'n' Andy. Immediately before Dubya's inauguration in January 2001, LaRouche warned that Cheney was Bush's ventriloquist, and likened Bush to Mortimer Snerd (you may need to look that one up). As the drumbeat for the invasion of Iraq began to mount in 2002, LaRouche issued a press release that September called Iraq is a Fuse, But Cheney Built the Bomb. In April of 2003, LaRouche issued the first Children of Satan report, which made the cult of Leo Strauss an international political controversy, as much as Andy might wish it were not so -- Cheney's wife Lynn, who wears the pants in the family, was identified as a disciple of Strauss. All this began to pay off in May of 2004 -- retired 4-star USMC generals Anthony Zinni and Joseph Hoar approached EIR for discussion, gave exclusive interviews to EIR, and then commenced a very public campaign to dump Cheney and the Pentagon chickenhawks. Since that time Cheney has been humiliated over and over, from his outburst of obscenities on the floor of the Senate, to being booed by 50,000 baseball enthusiasts at Yankee Stadium. But I suspect that the "success" referred to in the CEC release may be the New York Times article reporting that the scandal over Cheney's physician, who was exposed as a dope addict, was merely a pretext to bring in a new physician, who will conveniently find that Cheney is not healthy enough to run for re-election.

As far as Gration is concerned, I suspect that he just didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the intimidation from Danby and his mates, unlike all the other people who signed the ad. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My answer will be brief -- I'm still preoccupied with wrangling with Adam 'n' Andy. Immediately before Dubya's inauguration in January 2001, LaRouche warned that Cheney was Bush's ventriloquist, and likened Bush to Mortimer Snerd (you may need to look that one up).

And LaRouche was the only person to suggest that Bush would be Cheney's puppet? In fact, this was a very common and popular suggestion made as soon as Cheney was unveiled as Bush's running mate. Everyone from the Democrats to Saturday Night Live has made this suggestion and no, they didn't get the idea from Lyndon LaRouche.

As the drumbeat for the invasion of Iraq began to mount in 2002, LaRouche issued a press release that September called Iraq is a Fuse, But Cheney Built the Bomb.

Again, LaRouche is far from the only one to link Haliburton and Cheney with the war in Iraq and LaRouche is far from the first person to make such an accusation.

In April of 2003, LaRouche issued the first Children of Satan report, which made the cult of Leo Strauss an international political controversy, as much as Andy might wish it were not so --

As much as Herschel wishes it wasn't so LaRouche wasn't the first or the most notable person to put forth arguments about the Straussian influence in the Bush Administration. We've been over this before (yawn)

Cheney's wife Lynn, who wears the pants in the family,

What would a LaRouche screed be without at least one misogynistic comment thrown in for good measure. Clara Fraser's analysis of LaRouche grows more and more in my estimation.

was identified as a disciple of Strauss. All this began to pay off in May of 2004 -- retired 4-star USMC generals Anthony Zinni and Joseph Hoar approached EIR for discussion, gave exclusive interviews to EIR, and then commenced a very public campaign to dump Cheney and the Pentagon chickenhawks.

May of 2004? There have been rumblings about dropping Cheney from the ticket for at least a year now. LaRouche is jumping on this bandwagon rather late, don't you think?

Since that time Cheney has been humiliated over and over, from his outburst of obscenities on the floor of the Senate, to being booed by 50,000 baseball enthusiasts at Yankee Stadium. But I suspect that the "success" referred to in the CEC release may be the New York Times article reporting that the scandal over Cheney's physician, who was exposed as a dope addict, was merely a pretext to bring in a new physician, who will conveniently find that Cheney is not healthy enough to run for re-election.

This is all because of LaRouche? Or all because of the unpopularity of the war and the growing view that again predated the LaRouche "campaign" that Cheney is the "Prince of Darkness". The web is replete with anti-Cheney websites and material dating back before this May.

Perhaps, for his next trick, LaRouche will claim responsibility for day following night or for the earth revolving around the sun or for the tide coming in? Herschel, maybe you should get out more or at least try reading some non LaRouchite material. I suppose when you only hear what LaRouche has to say you're bound to think he's the first on the block to have said it.AndyL 22:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your Lord Haw Haw routine is way stale.

Herschel, if you're going to accuse me of being a Nazi propagandist you should at least have the guts to log on and do so under your username. AndyL 05:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your accusation is misplaced. I see no need to point fingers at you; I prefer to see you hoisted by your own petard. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

what on earth has all this got to do with Danby? Adam 01:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One does wonder that. Ambi 01:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not so mysterious, Ambi -- what I wrote was in response to your question of 23:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) (see above). Then, Andy couldn't resist the temptation to add his own gloss. The whole thing probably belongs on someone's User_talk page. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"MELBOURNE, Aug. 13 (EIRNS)--AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE REJECTS CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO LAROUCHE, CEC. A call for an investigation of Lyndon LaRouche's Australian associates, the Citizens Electoral Council, has been rejected by the Australian Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Jabotinskyite Michael Danby called for the CEC to be investigated by the Committee for its funding, following a CEC advertisement in major papers in June, denouncing the Howard government's fascist anti-terrorism laws. Committee chairman Petro Georgiou wrote to the CEC on Aug. 10, stating, "I am writing to confirm that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is not undertaking an investigation into the CEC, nor is it proposing to do so." This is the second time Danby has been knocked back by the Committee, of which he is the Vice-Chairman." Weed Harper 20:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Adam insists that Danby is just one out of 149 MPs that supported the bill. Not so. He stands out by reason of his hysterical attacks on the CEC ad campaign opposing the bill as a step toward fascism in Australia. And to describe my description of the bill as "highly polemical" is laughable: I refer to "Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004, which will enable people to be arrested for "consorting," or associating with "terrorists," whether at church (or mosque), community events, or even in the home." That is either true, or false; there are no inflammatory adjectives, or anything else that could be called "polemical."--Herschelkrustofsky 20:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danby and Muslims

Andy replaced "bellicose attitude toward the Muslim world" with "hawkish attitude toward the Mid-East." The former is correct. Danby's widely circulated attack on Mahathir of Malaysia, as well as his attitude toward Australian Muslims, makes the point. Adam goes on to delete "hawkish attitude toward the Mid-East", saying that it is unnecessary to say it, because the article already reports that Danby supports Israel. News flash: there are many people in the world who have discovered that one supports Israel far better by promoting peace between her and her neighbors, than by promoting constant conflict.--Herschelkrustofsky 20:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danby's Stance on Racism

I am no supporter of Danby, but it is rediculous to suggest that he is not ant-racism. Just because someone who hates you says something about you does that make it true? If you want to see evidence of Danby's stance on racism, read hansard, read his speaches. I doubt you will find him supporting racism, but i recon you will find him opposing it. Xtra 22:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xtra, you need to bone up on Wikipedia NPOV policy. Under this policy, all points of view must be represented. You may disagree with the Muslim critics of Danby, but they exist nonetheless and this must be reflected in the article. You are welcome to present material to discredit his critics, but you cannot just wish them away. Weed Harper 22:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you can't say that what your putting up is NPOV. To say that someone who has stood up many times against racism is not actually anti racism because some people who don't like him, is stupid, incorrect and verging on defamation. Xtra 22:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that doesn't mean you can say I have red hair, when my hair is in fact brown and post that! Especially when you are promoting POV Xtra 22:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If someone representing an institution of some sort were to insist that Xtra has red hair, then under the NPOV policy it should be included in any article on Xtra. Then, you would be free to present rebuttal material. You cannot, under the NPOV policy, exclude a public and verifiable point of view because you disagree with it. Weed Harper 22:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BTW, please note that my edit does not say that Danby is not anti-racist. It says that his claim to be anti-racist is disputed. Weed Harper 22:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

it is blatant POV designed to mislead. are you even australian? have you ever met danby? have you ever heard one of his speeches? Xtra 22:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External Links

The second external link which purports to be from the AJN is in fact not. If you follow the link, it is to a website which is not the AJN or maintained by the AJN or with any actual link to the AJN and in fact says that the article is not as it appeared in the AJN. In fact, the site is maintained by an "The Age" journalist. As such, I think it should be re-tagged ommitting reference to the AJN. Xtra 22:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re the first link, Barnett retracted and apologised for his comments about Danby when challenged over their inaccuracy. I will find the documentation for this. Adam 22:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

vote in jewish areas

in the past, in caulfield (the jewish area of melbourn ports), in federal elections, the labor / liberal split was 50/50, whereas at state elections it was 60 / 40 in favour of the liberals. this seems to show a high support for danby amongst jewish liberal voters. thus while it would most certainly be incorrect to say that there is a tendancy in jewish areas to vote labor, regular liberal voters seem to have been voting for danby. i have yet to see the split from this election, but am wondering if southwick did actually win votes in caulfield? Xtra 03:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was a swing of 4-6% in the Caulfield booths, where the more wealthy Jews live, and an 11% swing in the postal vote, which is where many Orthodox Jews vote. There was a much lower swing in East St Kilda, where less wealthy Jews and older Jews live. This shows that Southwick did take some Jewish votes from Danby, but not as many as he hoped, and not enough to win. The Southwick family spent an estimated $250,000 on their campaign, by the way. Adam 03:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xtra

Xtra, your comment in reverting my edits ("stop reverting this page to your racist veiws") is not only illiterate, it is preposterous. I am providing a sourced, direct quote from Muslim critics of Danby. Your reverted version puts words in their mouths, suggesting that they have a hidden agenda (i.e., they don't really think Danby is anti-Muslim, and their motive for saying so is that they are angry with him for supporting Israel) -- you are, in effect, slandering his critics. Additionally, your characterization of my "veiws" as racist constitutes a personal attack, which is forbidden under Wikipedia policy, and I ask you to desist. Perhaps we should ask for mediation on this article; I am completely willing. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

a person can express racist views without being a racist. in any event, i apologise for using such extreme language. however, i stand by my claims that the edits that you propound are less than reasonably capable of being seen as truthful as a sense of true reflection of events and people. such editing, in my veiw, can promote unwaranted fear, angst and hatred leading to racism. p.s. don't attack my literacy, i may not be able to spell, but i am far from iliterate, i can read what you write and i know what it means. Xtra 23:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Xtra, you reverted this edit:

However, he has been criticised as "one of the most vociferous opponents to Islam in Canberra" by Muslim and pro-Palestinian activists; his supporters assert that this accusation is due to his strong support for Israel.

...to this one:

His strong support for Israel has led to criticism from Muslim and pro-Palestinian activists salam/ Muslimvote0204.htm.

First of all, the one you don't like seems to be the one that fits the quotes, not the "strong support for Israel" one. But regardless, how do you defend your description of the first edit as "vandalism"? I mean, give me a break. Weed Harper 12:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

of what first edit? please explain your possition properly so i can respond to whatever it is you are complaining about. you and your friend Herschelkrustofsky appear to have a wierd obsession with michael danby. i wonder why? Xtra 12:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I quote two edits above, the one that you reverted from, and the one that you reverted to. Let's call the first of these the "first edit." That's the one you called "vandalism" in your edit summary. Why is that? Weed Harper 13:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it is planely obvious on the face of it that while one version gives a background and a reason for the attacks on danby, the other arranges things out of context. the version i have reverted to is far more factually accurate and in context than the other. to mention something out of context without a full and accurate explanation is sloppy at best and propogander pushing at worst. the continued reversion to the other version is vandalism. i will take the appropriate steps if that version is re-included. Xtra 15:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xtra, it is unacceptable to misrepresent the views of Danby's Muslim critics. If you believe that they are being dishonest, post some rebuttal information. But the cited quotes clearly and unambiguously accuse Danby of an anti-Muslim bias, and you are attempting to present it as something different (and less embarassing to Danby.) You are allowing your POV to distort your editing judgement. I repeat my offer to go to mediation on this. --HK 15:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

stop your bull, herschelkrustofsky. this from the person who says that if you attack Mahatir from malaysia you are anti-muslim. you should read what slandarous lies Mahatir has spouted about jews in general. see who is the racist there.

i have not misrepresented anyone's views. if anyone has it is you. it is unconscionable to mention that danby has muslim critics who say "bla bla bla" about him without having the precursor "oh by the way, this is only because he is an ardent supporter of israel".

oh, and believe me. i don't care about embarassing danby. embarass him all you like. just use the truth and not a pack of lies built around some quotes taken out of context.

i won't go to mediation over this. mediation requires mutual good faith and you have demonstrated in the past that you have none, and in these matters you are only interested in maintaining your highly POV edits. Xtra 15:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky. you are not disputing any facts. you are only disputing how they should be presented. as such your sign is innapropriate. Xtra 08:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

every edit you make to this page, i will revert, unless it is a genuine contribution. Xtra 08:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there are two versions of this page:

• the bipartisan, australian member's verson (of this australian politician), and
• the american larouchist version

while our version is tolerant of other's veiws, the larouchist only want their view aired.

i ask. is this article realy being disputed over facts or as a method to push propogander?

i further ask. why would a bunch of americans care so much as to repeatedly vandalise the article of a minor australian politician. he has never been a minister in any government. he has never had a high political appointment. he has never even had a high up opposition possition. all he is, is a deputy opposition whip. why the intense interest? is it because he is jewish, and supports israel??? Xtra 22:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because he is Jewish and because he has been a prominent critic of the CEC (the local LaRouche franchise), the League of Rights and other anti-Semite scum. Adam 08:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adam, need I remind you that your accusation that I am an anti-Semite is not only maliciously false, but that it is also a personal attack in violation of the ArbCom ruling? --HK 16:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky. read adam's sentence more carefully. nowhere does he accuse you of being an anti-semite. howver, if you wish to be associated with anti-semetic organizations, that's your business. Xtra 22:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing NPOV discussion

I didn't want to engage in a dead-end revert war with Xtra; he seems to be unable to move beyond a circular argument. It it clear that is representation of the the quotes from Danby's Muslim critics, that they oppose him for being pro-Israel, does not correspond to the quotes themselves, which state that they oppose him for being anti-Muslim. I was willing to let Xtra's false representation stand, so long as the NPOV tag remained to direct the reader to the dispute on the talk page. Adam should not take this to mean, however, that I no longer dispute Xtra's representation. So, in order to demonstrate my sincerity to Adam, I have replaced Xtra's formulations with more accurate ones. --HK 16:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt the sincerity of Herschelkrustofsky's attachment to his LaRouchite fantasies: merely their sanity. Adam 16:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky's version is not more accurate. it is less accurate and is no more than POV vandalism. Xtra 21:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The quotation that HK is proposing to include seems to be taken out of context:

Don’t take any Party for granted. Don’t assume that Labor Members are more supportive than the Coalition. In fact one of the most vociferous opponents to Islam in Canberra is the Labor Member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Michael Danby. (Ironically, he won his pre-selection with support from Righ–wing Labor Muslims!) http://www.famsy.com/salam/Muslimvote0204.htm

It would be misleading to include one clause of the quotation without also mentioning that the speaker acknowledges that Danby receives electoral support from Muslims. -Willmcw 20:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what way would that be misleading, Will? Is it your contention that when the writer refers to Danby as "one of the most vociferous opponents to Islam in Canberra" he is being facetious? He uses the term "ironically" to describe support for Danby from right-wing Labor Muslims, and puts an exclamation point at the end of his parenthetical sentence. --HK 02:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I note that Xtra has now added this new formulation: "His strong support for Israel and his stance against terrorists and their supporters has led to criticism from Muslim and pro-Palestinian activists," which worsens the NPOV problem with the article, since it could be taken to mean that Muslims and Palestinians are assumed to be terrorists or terrorist supporters. I have reverted to the previous version that I posted. --HK 02:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HK, If you would like to include the entire phrase then that would be different. Or, maybe something like, "One critic, while admitting that Danby receives support from key electoral support from Muslims, calls him "One of the most...."." All in all, I think that it is problematic to use a quote that you have to take out of context to make your point. The fact that Danby gets support from many Muslims makes this one critic's comments less weighty. You could have excerpted the last line instead just as easily: "he won his pre-selection with support from Righ–wing Labor Muslims." -Willmcw 03:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to improve it, but the problem is still that of giving a single critic excessive weight. For balance, maybe some quotations from people with different views? -Willmcw 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PAC article from the United States

I'm not saying that this is a potential source for this article (it isn't), but it's interesting evidence that Danby quite well known even all the way across the world. Wikipedia's own Adam Carr is even mentioned in this article. [5] Cognition 15:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A typical piece of LaRouche filth, queer-baiting me while actually confusing me with someone else, since I don't own a pink shirt. Adam 16:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I will send them a note asking them to verify the information. In the meantime, I will keep in mind that the events are contested. Cognition 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche websites are not considered reliable sources for anything in Wikipedia. Your continued promotion of LaRouche's theories is contrary to ArbCom rulings. -Willmcw 03:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Writing to a LaRouche publication asking them to verify something would be a painfully pointless exercise — it reminds me of Ludwig Wittgenstein's example about buying a second copy of a newspaper in the morning to make sure that what he'd read in the first copy was correct.

Material emanating from the LaRouche movement is regarded as original research and may be deleted on sight by any editor, except in articles closely related to LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Reread my comments. I said above that I knew that the article was not a potential source for Wikipedia. Cognition 05:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

David Southwick - To decrease Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports?

Adam - you state that Southwick spent quarter of a million dollars on his Liberal campaign. What is your proof? A statement by Michael Danby under parliamentary privilege stating that is not proof. Please explain?

As you state that Southwick ran deliberately to decrease the Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports (which would not realistic help Southwick to get in politics since only 10-15% of Jews live in Melbourne Ports and it is the Greens that gets Michael Danby into parliament and the Jewish vote would not make any substantial difference)? I do recall that David Southwick contest a pre-selection against another Liberal contender. Did Michael Danby during 2003-4 have any Labor Party members challenge him for a preselection? Because it is unfair to say that Southwick was pre-selected because of the religion he and his ALP opponent worship.