Talk:Nicola Roxon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is Roxon being singled out for criticism here? Unless she was the architect of the policy - which this doesn't say - she'd just be following the party decision. Are we going to add similar paragraphs for almost every single federal MP? Ambi 09:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

She is the shadow Attorney and was thus responsible for the decision, which she announced before the matter had been to Caucus. And the article doesn't in fact criticise her - it reports that others did so, which is true. Adam 09:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roxon's position on gay marriage

This statement might be appropriate in a lengthy article on Roxon. As the one description of a position she has taken in 8 years in Parliament it is POV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.20.105 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 August 2006 (ACST).

Religion/heritage

Part one

My edits concerning Nicola's Jewish father are constantly removed. I have advised the news department of a major media in Australia of anti-semitic behavior. This is to be discussed not constantly reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.192.195 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have asked this page to be protected after 'threats to my IP' by user KnowledgeOfSelf if I continue to bettle against his constant anti-semitic reversions. 149.254.192.195 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#.7B.7Bla.7CNicola_Roxon.7D.7D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.192.195 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Part two

The anon IP, under the pathetic guise of anti-semitism, keeps re-adding Roxon's religion. None of the other cabinet ministers have their religion listed, and despite multiple users reverting the anon IPs edits, he ignores the fact he now needs consensus before re-adding. Gain consensus or be blocked. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It is referenced now. I thought it was deleted earlier because it was not referenced. I see no reason why religion should not be mentioned for politicians. --Bduke (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have deleted the shorter version of the IPs editors. I think there is a need for compromise here. The reference on Roxon's Jewish Heritage is saying something important, but it may not of course mean that she is jewish, but just had a jewish father. Could we leave religion out of the infobox and add something in the main part of the article about the influence of her father on her life? I may have a COI here, as I know Nicola as my MP and worked for her as a volunteer in the last election. I will not add this to the article. --Bduke (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, add it to the body (not the lead) of the article. But multiple people disagree to adding it to the infobox, where no other cabinet ministers have it. Thus it cannot be added to the infobox without consensus. Timeshift (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for laying down the law admin. Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh?? --Bduke (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A wikipedia admin has protected the page and added a warning that anyone who re-adds religion to the infobox will get an immediate ban. Fantastic! Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were addressing me as I am an admin, but did not think my comments above were "as an admin". --Bduke (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Reading the comment in 'anti-semitic edits' it is quite clear that the people who contribute ( Timeshift or his mates/sockpuppets) constantly removed edits related to her father for a 3 month period. I think that is very wrong. What's wrong with having a Jewish father? Can anyone explain why a number of people were unable to include this information? GaryGazza (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong is your false accusation that i'm colluding with other editors about this page or use sockpuppets. I have touched nothing but the infobox, I havent touched the body of text at all, and my first edit to this page was a month ago. Now cease your baseless accusations immediately. Timeshift (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So the edits just removed themselves for a three month period and people who added her father's details had their IP's threatened? Strange that you are the only person in this discussion who wanted to remove any relation to the jewish faith. Also, strange you are also the only person to campaign for the site to be protected without the reference to the father. Also strange it is still protected now and no reference to her jewish father can be added. Maybie I'm annoyed by the 3 month campaign against the incusion of her father. So who is responsible and why hasn't the comment been added. Unprotect the page, apologise and add the comment and that is the end.GaryGazza (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I say nobody removed anything? No. I said I had no involvement in them. Refer to orderinchaos (another admins) comments and understand that your comments will and are getting you absolutely nowhere. I have nothing else to add. Timeshift (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was scanning some polititions sites on wiki and came accross this one. Taking an impartial look I've noted the following:

1. Reading the above it seems the only person objecting to adding Jewish to the template is Timeshift. Also, timeshift has been the only one pushing for the removal of all references to her parents. Timeshift is also solely responsible for pushing the admins to block edits.

It is my opinion that only one user Timeshift does not want her Jewish religion added. One user is not a majority.

2. As a standard template used for polititions on wiki, religion has been approved for incusion in articles. One would assume that as long as it is sourced as much information should be included. I personally feel religious views have played a big part in Australian politics [Tony Abbott] is one example.

3. It seems her parents and their influence on her have been completly removed as her father is Jewish.

Could we refer this to a non-biased admin for comment. GaryGazza (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Others besides me have reverted it. Also I had never spoken to the admin, or any admin, about this, the admin took it upon themselves, and to add I find it very slimy of you to accuse an admin of bias without any proof, and myself. I also find it interesting that you choose to contribute to this discussion as your very first edit, new user. Timeshift (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably not non-biased as I commented above. However, admins are not here to comment on content, but to use the tools. So the fact that I am an admin does not matter. On reflection, and I hint at this position above, I see no reason to add her religion to the template because I have no evidence that it is her religion. OK, her father was Jewish it appears, but that does not make her Jewish. I have meet her several times and worked on her election campaign. I do not know whether she is religious and I do not see that it matters. However, I do think someone should add something about the influence of her father in the article, not in the infobox. --Bduke (talk) 10:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not involved in Australian politics and feel that there is a strong 'party' line in the above comments. Why does wiki have templates for polititions if the members of the polititions political party can pick and choose what to include in the article.

I am not picking and choosing. I am asking for evidence. We have no source that her religious beliefs now are Judaism. --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell WIKI template includes religion, religion influenced her early life. Thus it should be included, they made the template for a reason.

No. Religion is for the person's religion, not what influenced her early life. I am an atheist. Methodism influenced my early life. They are not the same. --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That being said, I feel that a short paragraph should be immediately added commenting on her Jewish father and her Jewish religion. Time shift is the only person disputing this.

No, he is not. If you looked above he suggested I added it. Nobody is disputing adding it. I did not do so because I do have a COI here. Why do you not add it? --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I then ask a non-labour party admin to look at this issue. Looking at the history it seems when someone added the Jewish background it was removed as vandalism by admins who are part of the labour party. That is borderline racist. GaryGazza (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, wrong. I am the only admin here who is a Labor Party member and the only revert I did was some time ago when it really did look like vandalism because the edit also labeled her as a lesbian which is clearly false and was clearly vandalism. At that time, I thought the editor was also thinking that adding "Jewish" was a derogatory comment like "lesbian". Adding "jewish" to the template has been reverted many times. I do not even know whether the editors reverting it are admins. Do you know? Do you realize that you do not have to be an admin to revert edits? --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bduke hit the nail on the head. What influenced her does not make it her religion. Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for personal insults from a group of ALP supporters. All I asked for was an unbiased opinion. Nicola is Jewish and that is important. A person's religious views shape their views. I again ask for unbiased people ( ie. non-alp supporters) to contribute. THis is not an ALP run website. GaryGazza (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[Personal attack removed]Please show us a single personal attack made toward you. I'll show one you made toward me at the top of the discussion - 'timeshit'. Second, you agree her father is jewish and influenced her but cannot show that she herself practises the jewish faith. Everyone contributes of all hues, just because it doesn't confirm to what you believe, doesn't make it otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The above is a personal attack and I ask it to be removed. I do not use drugs. Timeshift you have conducted a personal campaign to remove Nicola's Jewish heritage. Clearly you are biased. I again request that the information be added and an unbiased admin be asked to join the discussion. Possibly also a member of the Liberal party to provide a counter argument to the total labour bias of the contributers to this article and Timeshifts vendetta against the inclusion of Jewish heritage and personal insults to me. GaryGazza (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it a personal attack, however I removed it. And again, where, prior to, have any of us personally insulted you? Nowhere. And how have I conducted a personal campaign? How am I clearly biased? Does she practise the jewish faith? Cites please? Her father being jewish is not sufficient. You can request until you're blue in the face, until you address the prior sentence you'll get absolutely nowhere, not a single inch. Also, don't expect anyone to take you with a single ounce of credibility on politics when you can't even spell Labor. Timeshift (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jewishness, if it can be called that, is worked through the mother's side, not the father's. So one would need to know if her mother was to make a claim on lineage alone. Orderinchaos 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying you will not move one inch concerning the adding of Nicola's father's influence and religion even if it is cited. Removing a cited reference constantly for 3 months because it is not part of the labour party line is bias. GaryGazza (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh so this is an article on her father? No, it isn't. It's about her, not her father. Thus, it does not belong in Nicola's infobox, as has already been clarified. You have again clarified her father and not her, so thankyou, it only works against re-adding it to the infobox. What IS bias is saying she is jewish just because her father is. And again, where did "a group of ALP supporters personally insult you"? Judging by your repeated lack of reply, nowhere. And again, don't expect anyone to take you with a single ounce of credibility on politics when you can't even spell Labor. Timeshift (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift please return to rational discussion and sease your insults.

The article shows how strong her father was an influence to her life. I call for a line about Nicola's parents and her own heritage. If there is a line about her aunt I'm sure Nicola's fathers influence is credible. I ask timeshift to not immediatly revert this as she has done for the past 3 months. cited references are not vandalism. GaryGazza (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we have different ideas on what an insult is. Paste to me the line in particular where you are being insulted? You can't spell Labor, that's a fact, not an insult. An insult is you calling me timeshit, or she. You can call for a line about Nicola's parents and how they influenced her, you can even add it, assuming it is all factual and cited. Nicola herself however, with a lack of citations, is not jewish herself, and thus cannot be added to the infobox. And this is backed up by administrators who have overruled you. I am perfectly satisfied that any administrator of any political pursuation will see your comments for what they are. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remove your alegations that my mispelling of your name was slander. As far as I can see the admins are saying to add the line about her Jewish father. This is contrary to your assertion that this was vanalism and you unilateral campaign for 3 months to remove references to her parents. I would actually call that vandalismGaryGazza (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations? You called me timeshit at the beginning of this, it's there for all and sundry to see. I took it as an insult. How extremely contradictory you tell me to remove my allegation when I have quoted the insult, when you give allegations that we've insulted you yet you provide zero proof. Next, my first ever edit to this article was last month, so I have no idea what 3 months you're referring to. Next, I have only ever advocated the removal of jewish from the infobox, and in my all of 5 edits made since January, all have been to the infobox, none to the body of the article, and nothing at all to do with her parents. Bizarre. Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a silly edit war on this site for 3 months and you are the only person who reverted links to her parents. Clearly this must be an ALP fan site by your reckoning and you remove non-alp material. I don't even understand why being Jewish is an insult in your eyes. Anyway I have more better things to do than this. goodbye. GaryGazza (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I invite all users to review the edit history and see the five edits from my nickname, that span back to only the last month (not 3), which have made edits to the infobox only. This is not an ALP fan site, this is an encyclopedia and I believe NPOV is upheld quite well. You might want to note who found the quality images at John Howard, Peter Costello, Brendan Nelson, and Julie Bishop just to name a few. What a way to create an ALP fan site. Being jewish is not an insult, I don't understand why you think I would mean this. Her parents religion does not make her religion, if you can find a ref which shows that she herself is jewish then so be it, but until then it must be treated as untrue. I think some are way too sensitive - where do people get off labelling people 'anti-semitic' just [Removed personal insults] Timeshift (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just removed some more slander against me. GaryGazza (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not slander, i've re-added it, please do not alter others comments, you do not hold this right. Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been asleep while you two have been hammering on. I hope you have both calmed down after sleeping yourself. There are two issue here:

1. Having a cited sentence in the article about the affect of her Jewish father on her.
2. Stating she is Jewish in the infobox.

Nobody is objecting to the first point. There is a source. Just do it. I have absolutely no objection to the second point, if and only if there is a source that shows that she self-identifies as Jewish. She may do that, or she may not. We do not really know. I only mentioned knowing her, as that had not given me any indication that she self-identifies as Jewish, but she could of course do so. It just reinforces the need for a source. Even being culturally Jewish passes from the mother, not the father, so the fact that her father was Jewish is not important. We just need a source. That is all and every admin on WP will agree with me. Please read the guideline on biographies of living persons. --Bduke (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And my stance is exactly your stance, as would be the stance of any other wikipedian. Thanks anyhow for the clarification. Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you constantly revert the addition of her Jewish father, constantly removing the link? I really don't understand why being Jewish is so wrong for you that you constantly removed it. May I suggest someone add the info as the page is protected to prevent non ALP comment as far as I can see. GaryGazza (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My five edits to this article which only span back to my first edit made last month have only been to the infobox. If she is jewish, then show a reference. Her father being jewish does not make her jewish. If you wish to mention, in the article and not the infobox, that her father is jewish and how it relates to her, in a properly referenced fashion, then we all here have said this is fine. We/I've already said all of this previously. Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems like more than a share of trolling here. GaryGazza, as an admin who has been entirely uninvolved in the discussion to this point, I strongly recommend you read verifiability, original research and biography of living persons. Constantly edit warring in this way is probably going to end with you blocked from editing. Orderinchaos 09:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have received a threat in my talk stating that I will be banned. Let me clarify.

I want the block to edits to be lifted so I can add infomation about Nicola's Jewish father.

Why has this not been done? Please advise why this in contrevention of T&C?

GaryGazza (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT continue to accuse me of things I have no part in, stop your lies NOW. Timeshift (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You removed a reference to Nicola's father's faith which was not in contravention of wiki t&c's. You provided no explanation of why you did this. It is my opinion. The best way to resolve the matter is to add the line back concerning her father - but you got the page blocked to edits. I agree there should be nothing in the box. So why hasn't the line been added? GaryGazza (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

All I have ever touched on this page is the infobox, not the body of the article, which was removing your incorrect assertion that she is jewish. As orderinchaos states, the lineage is on the mothers not the fathers side

what are you on about? Read the above I am talking about adding her father. GaryGazza (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

, so unless you can provide a citation to show that she herself is jewish, then... oh we've been here a million times. you're just not listening.

You don't seem to have read my point above, it about adding the father - not her faith in the talkbox. Take a deep breath and read what I wrote again. Relax..... GaryGazza (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We've all stated we have no problems mentioning her father is jewish in the body of the text. And no I didn't get the page blocked, yet again you accuse me of things I have no part in. Stop your lies NOW. Timeshift (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to overreact, there is life outside of wiki. What I said is true but if you agree that the line should be added please ask an admin to unblock the page.

And take a chill pill man! GaryGazza (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added something about the influence of her father, but the reference (to an "AGE" article) which was the cite added earlier to justify the "Jewish" entry in the infobox, actually does not say he was jewish as far as I can see. Am I missing something there, or it is a another reference? --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be her 'jewish' father. Then this sordid incident is over GaryGazza (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Read what he typed - the ref says nothing about her father being jewish. Your contributions have been nothing short of disgraceful right throughout. Compare what you advocate now to what you originally advocated and it's very different. Nice shifting of the goalposts. Timeshift (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Where in that reference does it say he is Jewish? I just do not see it. Or do you have another reference. If so please add it. I have unprotected the article, but will keep an eye on it. It will get protected again if there is a war or a lot of edits that do not follow policies and guidelines. --Bduke (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/ad/0c0483ad.asp GaryGazza (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh so now it's her grandfather not her father? Also you fail to mention it in what you added, to make it sound like both the grandmother + grandfather are jewish. Next, you simply did a direct copy and paste from your source. Next, we try to refrain from calling people "jew" on encyclopedias. Timeshift (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Too much edit conflict. That article says her grandfather was a Polish Jew. It does not say her father was. Jewishness is passed down the maternal side not the paternal, so we still do not have a reference about the father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 11:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with your edit. Please protect the page as timeshift is harping on about the 'jew' word being in the article. What is wrong with being jewish? I am proud to be a jew and hate racism GaryGazza (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

'jew' is non-encyclopedic and can be considered pejorative. Jewish is fine. I've reworded and nobody should have any further issues. Your disgraceful "you hate jewish people" line is reeeeeally getting old. Timeshift (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My father is a Polish Jew and he just told me he feels your edit to be offensive. Polish Jew is used by Jews to refer to Poles who were jews ( just like Polish Catholic). Lets leave it like it is. It sounds better that way. Also why use 13 words when you can use 2 ( remember english class) As far as I can see if we leave it like it is now I am happy and this whole sorid incident is over. Lets end it.GaryGazza (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if we're not dealing with a visitor from that venerable site Stormfront. Orderinchaos 12:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Offended? Hilarious. I will revert and keep reverting as polish 'jew' is non-encyclopedic and can be considered pejorative. Jewish man of polish descent. If that's offensive, then I agree with the comment above... Timeshift (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally this has all been (forcefully) ended. I just want to again note that all of the user's accusations against me are untrue, and to read the entire talk page, should anyone question my position on any of this whatsoever. I am not anti-semitic and have only wanted the page to be correct. Timeshift (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is priceless... aparently this account was blocked by timeshift. Looking at nicola Roxon I see that the changes the user was blocked for were actually added after other users complained about timeshift??!!?? The user of this IP added that she had a jewish grandfather and was blocked. So the whole of T-mobile is blocked because Timeshift didn't like a reference to a jewish grandfather that is referenced. Talk about delusions! Timeshift (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A question

Is her grandfather's religion really relevant to a biography about her? Will ^(talk) 21:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to identify someone's ethnic background is important. I would however have preferred the wording of the editor who was blocked and use "Polish Jew", because that gives the ethnicity better and it is the wording in the source. I was asleep when that battle raged last night. --Bduke (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We should not be using jew on an encyclopedia. It can be considered pejorative. Timeshift (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You said that last night several times, but do you have evidence for it in this context. It can be considered pejorative, but it can also not be. It is the wording in the source and your edit was too wordy. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It can be considered pejorative you just said it yourself. If there is an alternative, it should be sought. Polish man of jewish descent is better than polish jew. Three additional words is not too wordy. Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this is what Bduke meant, as far as I can see wiki uses Jew. Please provide evidence to back up your edit.195.75.78.206 (talk)

I totally agree with Will on this one - it really doesn't belong here, though neither of the forms being debated are really suitable if it is to be here. I am partly of Jewish descent and took the trouble to contact a friend over there, who is Austrian but half-Polish. Her response was: "I have problems with both of these alternatives, one is a statement of faith and says more than we know about him - I would support this if he was practicing in the faith though rather than like many jewish blood people of the time Catholic - and the other reads like a bank form!" It seems this is WP:OR territory, and if I was less tired I'd try and think of a wording which satisfies criteria but makes no assumptions. Orderinchaos 14:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an Australian and my father was a Polish Jew. I disagree, her grandfather was a procticing jew who fled the holocaust. He instilled strong values to the family ( in the article) this is relevant. GaryGazza (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate to tell you this, but it does not say that *anywhere* in the article. I lost 13 relatives in the Holocaust, and another narrowly escaped Dachau. I've actually been to the hotel in the Czech Republic that was taken off them by their neighbours after Nazi annexation. So I'm not talking blind here. Orderinchaos 14:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I also lost relatives in the holocaust and my father was in Dachau. Polish Jew is the comon historical reference to the Jewish community in Poland. Her grandfather was the patriac of the family and influenced it enourmously. This is all silly edit waring but Polish Jew is correct. I'm not fighting against timeshift, I think that such a family history is worth mentioning. It plays an important role in the family - it is also quite cool. It is just that the wording of timeshift doesn't express it well and leads to confusion. GaryGazza (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I must say, your continual but subtle change of view/shifting of the goalposts to suit is quite impressive. I again encourage all to read this talk page from start to finish. Timeshift (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't dispute the compromise wording needs work (my friend's "bank form" comment has some merit) but "Polish Jew" is too POV-loaded, it implies things that we honestly cannot verify. I would suggest reading WP:OR. It should be possible to determine a different form which communicates both. Orderinchaos 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just not *eugh* polish "jew". Timeshift (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just reviewing Timeshift's point, it seems he may well have a point re the character of this argument. It seems that the user has signed up to Wikipedia with the sole intent of asserting Roxon is Jewish. I had incorrectly assumed initially that the person was racist and attempting to brand her as Jewish as an insult, but it now appears the person is working from the other side and we're essentially looking at a conflict of interest situation. First the war was over whether her father was Jewish. Then it became over whether she was Jewish, which couldn't be proven, and repeated attempts to add this to the infobox despite a consensus to the contrary. Now it's her grandfather, based on a single line in one article. I can see the point Timeshift is making re the continual shifting of this argument. I would note that while single purpose accounts are not in and of themselves bannable, disruptive editing or possibly more correctly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is. Orderinchaos 14:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because I feel that it is a good edit doesn't make me disruptive, this whole thing is childish. The edit doesn't make sence. Polish Jew was taken straight from the source ( with all the implications). The source was actually saying how cool Nicola's family history is. What is wrong with that? It is not disruptive as others agree with me. It is only timeshift who constantly replies in the negative. Bduke agrees, and timeshift comes in again.... GaryGazza (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Implications" does not work on an encyclopaedia - we require factual, verifiable, reliably sourced information. From the article all we know is that the guy was Polish but had to flee Poland on account of Nazi persecution for being Jewish. We know a lot of people who are matrilineally Jewish but not practicing Jews were treated exactly the same way as practicing Jews. The article makes the point in one line, which places how her family came to be in Australia, then moves on, so I fail to see any implication or any reason to make assertions which are not supported by sources. Orderinchaos 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Also given that I have done a complete records search and the only sources which make this claim are a Jewish community newspaper and two instances of an identical sentence several months apart in articles in Australian Doctor, both of which make it in the character of what I would describe as a throwaway claim, I'm not sure why we're even debating this. Orderinchaos 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has been completely disruptive and you've been blocked previously for it, yet again you're shifting the goalposts, you've been advocating Jewish as Roxon's religion, then her father, then her grandfather, and now basing disruptive edits/lack of on this last encounter alone. Stop shifting. Per above, Orderinchaos also agrees polish jew shouldn't be used. Regardless, wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:DEMOCRACY. Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Let normality prevail

Whoa, what a strange discussion. I agree with Bduke and think that it is time to get back to normal. I have reverted to the consensus edit as it gives the ethnicity better and flows better. A number of articles I see in wiki use the word Jew. Timeshift, although I realize that accusations made against you are dubious - consensus is for the other edit. If you can provide evidence for this then we can change the edit. It is normal for wiki to take the consensus and edit wars are getting silly on this site

One concern I have is timeshift's edit is ambiguous. His edit does not make it clear that the grandfather was a practicing Jew who fled Poland before the holocaust.

195.75.78.206 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus, it hasn't been discussed. I say polish man of jewish descent, one other says polish jew. Where was your consensus to change it? Please thrash out a discussion here and get contributors involved beforehand. Reverted. Timeshift (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I smell socks. Orderinchaos 14:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, where is your consensus to edit the pager? Me, 195.75.78.206,Bduke have all made comments against your edit. Wiki doesn't put in new changes against a majority consensus. I am not a sockpuppet of Bduke. GaryGazza (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course you're not a sockpuppet of Bduke... what an insult to him. Timeshift (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Bduke is a reputable contributor with his own opinion, which I respect. However, these IPs that have come along to support you are clearly not independent of yourself. Orderinchaos 14:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. And majority consensus? Wikipedia is not a democracy. See WP:DEMOCRACY. Timeshift (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not insulted, mate, but I did splutter into my early morning coffee. I want to make a number of points. First, I was criticized a few days ago for unprotecting the article. Perhaps that criticism was correct. Certainly the nonsense has returned. I fully support the current protection added by Orderinchaos. Second, I think Orderinchaos makes a good point in the section above this, that the sources are indeed rather weak. "Polish Jew" or "Polish man of jewish descent" both seem to have problems. Would "Pole who fled to Australia before the outbreak of World War II to avoid the persecution of Jews" be better? Thirdly, I am not going to edit this article, as I know Nicola as my member of the House of Representatives and at ALP functions. Fourthly, to GaryGazza, you do seem to be fixated on this article. I suggest you spend time on other articles and develop a better grasp of the policies and guidelines of WP. --Bduke (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care how it's phrased, but I really do want to avoid "jew(s)" if possible. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

what a sad place

What a load of rubbish this is stacked full of ALP supporters who want to make this a propaganda piece. ALP propaganda isn't an reference, it is Spin.

It is sad that Nicola's grandfather had to escape such people only to find them in Australia.

I never knew the ALP was so anti-Jewish. GaryGazza (talk)

Hilarious. I have no need to restate the facts above. You don't learn from your blocks do you? Timeshift (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So you are threatening to block me because I think that there is an ALP bias? GaryGazza (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying you don't learn from your blocks, and threatening a block are two different things. I can do the former. Admins can and do, do the latter. Timeshift (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift can't block you - he's not an admin. However, making insinuations that people are racist is not going to get you very far. In what way is insisting on reliably sourced information "ALP propaganda"? We get campaigners all the time who want to add things to articles. For example: that John Howard's father owned copra plantations employing exploited workers in Papua New Guinea (actually true, but entirely irrelevant to his article). That Australian Aboriginals were cannibals, citing allegedly reliable sources none of which was printed after 1930. That an entire incident which dominated federal politics in April last year should not be reported at all because it's over now (I suppose a lot of historians would be out of a job with that one). That some guy called Jordan is "king" of a Melbourne suburb. And now this. Campaigners get somewhat short shrift in this place, not even because of what they believe, but their methods of adding content against consensus, and insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with what they are doing. I believe that Wikipedia should be a neutral, reliably sourced resource, and this particular campaign of yours does not actually do that. Note this all started because you wanted to add "Jewish" to her infobox. I would be more welcoming of your efforts if you were to find actual sources, offline or online, which meet WP:RS conditions and which state the information you wish to add. However, it would appear few or none exist, and Roxon herself does not substantiate them. Orderinchaos 13:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add scourced material that Nicola's grandfather a Polish jew escaping the holocaust strongly influenced her move into health. But timeshift has battled me all the way, threatening a one man campaign to remove reference to a great religion. personal attack removed. GaryGazza (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

personal attack removed from above comment..Gnangarra 14:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's your problem mate? The fact that we've proven you wrong at every turn? First you're adament Roxon is jewish. Then her father. Then her grandfather. And it's been added to the page - The middle of three sisters, Roxon is the granddaughter of a Polish man of Jewish descent who fled to Australia before the outbreak of World War II and worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane. Accept you've been beaten at the acceptable game on wikipedia of WP:RS and move on. Timeshift (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI GaryGazza has been blocked for 100 hours, and I suspect the next time will be permanent. Timeshift (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ropschitz family was all Jewish and from Lwow in Poland. Thus Nicola's father was Jewish ( pass from mother's side). I also feel Nicola's proper name Ropschitz should be added to information about the father. He anglicised the name to Roxon. GaryGazza (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography on Nicola. Everyone is welcome to add cited, relevant, NPOV information to all articles. But we will watch like eagles let me assure you. Timeshift (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did a Factiva search on all news sources and got the following:

Search Preview

Free Text	nicola roxon and ropschitz 
Date    	All Dates 
Source  	All Sources 
Region  	All Regions

No results.

Orderinchaos 02:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have something against saying 'Jewish' father. GaryGazza (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who has read the above will know my answer to this. Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GG, you have to ask yourself, is this point notable to the subject of the article. If so, please provide a reliable and verifiable source that clearly articulates the edit. From my perspective, your edits are not notable for Roxon, are not drawn from reliable sources and are subject to a lot of handing waving. However if you have a source that clearly states, unambigiously that the religion of Roxon's father is notable (to her personally, her own faith, cultural activities, political perspective etc. etc.) then yes it can be added. However until then, per WP:BLP the edits stay out. Shot info (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All sources are freely available in the wiki article Lillian Roxon. It seems to me that Jewish is fine for the decendants of the Roxon family, just needs to be hidden if you are in the ALP. What a great story, battelers coming to Australia and ending up in the health ministry. Shame to not say it.GaryGazza (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Lillian Roxon cited this and this. We have a cite for Nicola's grandfather, and it is mentioned in the article, but no other cites for father. I won't even bother to answer the rest of your reply. Timeshift (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, The internet is not the only source that can be used, there are things called books. Read the firt chapter of this Milliken, Robert Mother Of Rock (Melbourne, Black Inc. 2002) ISBN 1-86395-139-3 it clearly describes lillian's early life and the Jewish heritage. Source has been cited. Now stop removing her jewish heritage. GaryGazza (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You actually think we'll accept your word for it after 3 blocks and a huge crusade? You decided to quote Lillian Roxons cites before your holy grail ISBN? Timeshift (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, but this is the Nicola Roxon article - from what I'm seeing thus far it would be more appropriate at the Lillian Roxon article, but I may be wrong depending on what precisely the book says. Orderinchaos 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

I hope no one minds - as the second half of this thread is still live, and as part of my original post apepars to have been inadvertently deleted, I've re-added it and some subheadings to improve the fllow of discussion

Synthesis

GaryGazza, a couple of points in no particular order:

• Thank you - thanks for highlighting the existence of the Lillian Roxon book - it sounds interesting, if I can find a copy I'll buy it.

• Thanks, I am interested in the fantastic history of this family. GaryGazza (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Synthesis - your proposed additon to the article has a synthesis problem - even if there is a source for Nicola Roxon's relatives (parents? grandparents?) being Jewish, that doesn't mean she is. A standard synthesis: "My dog has four legs, my cat has four legs, therefore my cat is a dog." In this case you are arguing "Nicola Roxon is related to Lillian Roxon, Lillian Roxon has Jewish ancestry/is herself Jewish, therefore Nicola Roxon must also be Jewish." To avoid synthesis, you would need a source that states that Nicola herself professes the Jewish faith, not that some of her relatives do.

• As an aside, we have offline, first-person confirmation that she does not. Orderinchaos 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It seems I have been mis-represented. I do not want to say Nicola is Jewish - just her grandfather and father who were Polish Jews who escaped nazi persecution to found a family that lead to Nicola. Her father's role in her life is strong because of this background. I found it silly to say only her grandfather was Jewish and found a good source for her father, grandmother and grandfather. GaryGazza (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. We're all in agreement that Roxon herself is either not Jewish, or not verifiably so? If that's the case we should all also be inagreement that the article cannot claim that she is, and this issue appears to be resolved. Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Verifiability, not truth' -- the standard for inclusion of anything in Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth. Roxon is a public figure and subject to intense scrutiny and media coverage. If she considered her religion relevant to her politics, she has had ample opportunity to say so via reliable sources. She hasn't done so - instead we are grasping at straws about her relatives, third-party comments on influences on her life and references to a Milliken book which it appears none of us have read. She might be Jewish, an atheist or a Zoroastrian. Without reliable sources, we just can't say.

• Again, I only want her Jewish heritage to be added. I am not saying that she is Jewish. I have been misrepresented by timeshift. 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote from above - Nicola is Jewish and that is important. A person's religious views shape their views. I again ask for unbiased people ( ie. non-alp supporters) to contribute. THis is not an ALP run website. GaryGazza (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You do a good enough job of misrepresenting yourself without help from anyone else. Timeshift (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also [1], which tried to assert she was Jewish. I understand that you have abandoned that argument now, but accusing others of misrepresentation is a fairly serious thing to level, and I'd suggest that you don't. Orderinchaos 22:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We still don't seem to have a source that verifies the claim that a Jewish ancestry has affected Roxon's political decisions or ideals. It might well be true, but without definitive statements in independent sources we cannot include it. Note that for a claim like this the statement must specifically' attest that Nicola Roxon herself has adopted policy stances because some of her relatives had a particular religion or experienced particular things. It is not enough to note that past family experiences would lead a reasonable person to pursue policy stances. The link must be direct and well-sourced. Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

• Undue weight - related to the above, even if there were sources for Roxon being Jewish, there would need to be some relevance to her political life. For example, are there reliable sources that indicate her ideals or political actions have been directly influenced by her faith? Which ones? How?

• Again, I am not saying that Roxon is jewish but her Jewish father was an important influence as per the source I initially provided. GaryGazza (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You indicate that there is a soruce for Roxon's father beign a major influence on her, but not why. If there isn;t a rource indicating he was a major influecne because of hisr eligion, then mentioning his religion in this context gives it undue weight. Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research

• Original research - You say Roxon's possible Jewish ancestry is relevant to her being Health Minister. Maybe, but the decision to appoint her was Rudd's. Unless there are sources saying that Rudd did so because Roxon asked him to, and Roxon asked him to for reasons associated with her religion, then this is original research and cannot be included in the article.

• The quote from the source I provided shows her father and family were a strong influence. GaryGazza (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See "undue weight" above. If Roxon's father was particularly religious and he had a strong influence on Roxon herself, it might appear obvious that his religion was relevant. But without a soruce, this is a supposition and fails the original research test. Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Lastly, personal attacks aren't a good way to advance a debate. I appreciate there's been some hot discussion and everyone's been provoked to say things they shouldn't. How about from here on we all assume good faith (no pun intended) on the part of other editors, and look for additional sources to settle the issue. Euryalus (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have tried, but I am upset at being misrepresented and Timeshift appearing within 1min of any post I make on wiki. I have provided a strong source and suggest you read the first half of the book. GaryGazza (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:V - it's your job as the person wishing to add the content to provide the source. It's not our job to find it. If you handed this in as a uni assignment and asked your lecturer to read half a book to find your assertion, they'd mark you down, heavily. I quote from just one unit guide from my uni for a politics unit I'm doing: Academic integrity involves behaving ethically and honestly in scholarship and relies on respect for other ideas through proper acknowledgement and referencing of publications. WP:V puts it similarly: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.. If you cannot be bothered doing this, we're all wasting our time here. Orderinchaos 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated, I am more than happy to site the source. In an essay or journal article ( I have published) one can also site a biblography reference for a source of more then one page. The whole section is devoted to the Roxon family and their jewishness.22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs)

Given the matter is contested, and given the onus is on you (not on us) to prove your assertions, page numbers and notes of some form (i.e. so we know what assertions link to what pages) are going to be essential here. To be honest, your word is not enough on this one - you've made so many bizarre claims and abstractions here that I am not willing to believe you unless I or another regular/admin sees the evidence in print. I am a fair person and am happy to add or assist in the addition of any sourced information regardless of whether it agrees or disagrees with stances I have taken previously - it's happened many times before on other topics. This is a community of volunteers, we are all busy people with our own lives away from here, and we are governed by standards, such as WP:V, WP:SYN, WP:OR etc. Orderinchaos 02:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent response Euryalus. Timeshift (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the first half of the book when I was in the state library and it clearly describes and cites all the information. From my experience you do not need to cite every single line. It is sufficient to leave a bibliography reference. I am more than happy if anyone ( except timeshift because of bias) read the first part of the book and confirm. It also shows the strong Jewish influence in the family. I think The fact that nicola's family were jewish refugies, set up lives in Australia etc. is important. At least worth two/three lines GaryGazza (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A bibliographic cite is not enough for our purposes. Nobody has the time to do what you're asking, and nor should they - if you don't want to do the work necessary to back up your claims, noone else is going to do it and the content will not be added. Orderinchaos 15:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Gary's proposal

Gary, please post here in this section the precise wording you want to add to the article. Again, please make no personal comments about other users and discuss nothing on this talk page but the article content. Sarah 11:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I am busy this evening but will provide my idea for adding this new sourced material in the next few days. GaryGazza (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What page number of the book backs up your claim though? Forget the page for now and concentrate on which bit backs up your claims. Timeshift (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, let him answer Sarah's request first. We can't add it without a source anyway, so one can be provided thereafter and I or another admin can check it (I'm happy to do so). Orderinchaos 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My Proposal

The middle of three sisters, Roxon’s grandparents were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937, anglicising their name from Ropschitz to Roxon. Her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] She is the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her parents Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists. Roxon was strongly influenced by her jewish father who died when she was 10. She was devastated by his death and came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[2]

Referenced from the first part of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The first four sentences look fine provided they are reliably sourced. You've footnoted some of the statements but not others - finding references for them all would be great. The last two sentences raise some issues:

• The second-last sentence - unless you have a source indicating that her father's religion is of special significance, making particular reference to it gives it undue weight. Was Roxon influenced by her father because he was Jewish, or for some other reason (his personality, his ideals, simply because he was her father?) If his influence was because he was jewish (and not some other reason) then this also needs a source. If his influence was not because he was Jewish, then mentioning it for no reason here gives it undue weight because it implies a significance it doesn't have. There also eneds to a be source for the statement she was influenced strongly by her father at all - while this might be a likely supposition, without a source it could be seen as original research;

==> Jewish provides a continuation of the family history. It is sourced and provides an insight into the family background. Lillian Roxon had many encounters with her Jewishness in the book and so did Lillian's father

• The last sentence - it can reasonably be assumed that most children would be devastated by their father's untimely death. However, once again there is a synthesis problem - her father died when she was young (fact A), many years later she made a fairly innocuous statement about helping people in poor health (fact B). The sentence goes on to say that fact A + fact B = synthesis C (ie. that one must be the reason for the other). What evidence is there that these two points are actually linked?

==> From the sourced articles Nicola was very clear that her father was a big influence in her life. GaryGazza (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just some general comments. We can surely find some wording to all agree on here. Euryalus (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Could I ask a favour - I'm finding it a bit hard to follow comments posted within other comments. It's my fault for raiising too many issues in each post and over-using dot points. How about we both add responses at the end of previous posts to keep them in chronological order?

On the topic, I still think there's an original research problem. The faith of Roxon's relatives might provide an insight into the family background and provide a continuation of the family history, but this needs to be specifically externally sourced. It's not enough that it appears to be obviously true, it also needs to be independently verifiable. I haven't read the book but as it is about Lillian I doubt that it clearly states that Nicola is or has been strongly influenced by the religion of relatives.

Secondly, I amhappy to take your word for it that there is a source for a statement that Nicola's father was a big influence on her life. That's not the problem - the problem is your proposed wording implies that this influence was related to his religion. that implication also needs sourcing - if there isn't a source then including it in the wording is both undue weight to an unrelated point, and original research in suggesting that his religion was a cause of the influence. Euryalus (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read the whole thing again, isn't this a lot of work for three lines that are sourced in a peer reviewed book and a number of newspaper stories? GaryGazza (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. For some truly extensive debates about not very much, have a look at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Euryalus (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So what do we need to do:

1. The issue is the addition of Jewish infront of Nicola's father- lets debate this. 2. We can add everything else ( so lets do it ).

Gary GaryGazza (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of your proposal is also at issue. Euryalus (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, all this text is a little confusing. What parts of the the text are at issue could you highlight?

The middle of three sisters, Roxon’s grandparents were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937, anglicising their name from Ropschitz to Roxon. Her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] She is the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her parents Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists. Roxon was strongly influenced by her jewish father who died when she was 10. She was devastated by his death and came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[2]

GaryGazza (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments re the wording immediately above:

• Sentence 1 - this needs sources for her grandparent's religion, the anglicisation of the name and the migration to Australia in 1937. Not saying there isn't one, but statements like this need a reliable source before inclusion in the article.
• Sentence 4 - The Age reference in the article says her father was a microbiologist, not a pharmacist.
• Sentence 5 - there is no evidence that her father's religion was the reason (or even a factor) in his influence on her. Mentioning it without any reason to do so gives it undue weight, because it implies a significance we cannot verify. This should simply read "...influenced by her father who died .."
• Sentence 6 - the Age reference mentioned above has Roxon linking the quote with her father's death, so I withdraw my concern with this sentence which appears to be fine.

This is more referencing than most Wikipedia articles have, but that's because most articles don't meet Wikipedia's referencing standards. What I've outlined above is what should be required of all pages. Sorry if it seems like nitpicking. I should also add that these are just my opinions. I'd welcome any views on the proposed wording from others who've taken part in this debate. Euryalus (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have written history journal articles and referencing is in the bibliography unless there is a direct relevant quote or point of information that can't be explained in a bibliography. We can't reference every word.

1-4 referenced by the first chapter of the book. Her father was a pharmacist and then became a microbiologist until he died in the UK.

5: Her father is Jewish and an escapee from the holocaust, this is an important point and he is jewish.

My new wording:

The middle of three sisters, Roxon’s grandparents along with her father were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937, anglicising their name from Ropschitz to Roxon. Her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] She is the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her parents Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists. Roxon was strongly influenced by her jewish father who died when she was 10. She was devastated by his death and came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The principal differences between what you propose and the wording currently in the article are a rewrite of the first sentence which regrettably makes it it less clear (it makes it sound like Roxon's grandparents were the middle of three sisters) and the inclusion of two mentions of her father's religion without any indication why this is significant. One referenced mention as family background is fine, but the seond mention still implies his religion was the key factor in his influence onher, and that seems completely unsupported.

I'm willing to believe you that her father was a microbiologist and a pharmacist but the pharmacy bit still needs a specific reference.

You're right when you say not every word in an article needs referencing but every statement that might be challenged does, particuarly in biographies of living people. If there are page numbers in the Lillian Roxon book that back all three claims about the grandparents then a single reference at the end of the sentence would be sufficient. Euryalus (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Roxon’s grandparents along with her father were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937, anglicising their name from Ropschitz to Roxon. Her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] She is the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her parents Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists. She is the middle of three sisters. Roxon was strongly influenced by her father who died when she was 10. She was devastated by his death and came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[3]

I need to ref the first chapter as it proves a longer version of the history. It doesn't make sence to reference specific pages. Feel free to read the book and put in the more specific refs but a chapter ref is within wiki policy. I will not enter into the silly discussions below where someone thinks 1937 is 1932 and continues not to listen GaryGazza (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not read the source I have provided. This source was also verified by ther person who actually wrote the lillian roxon article. Maybie I have been harsh as I have family history that has done a staging post immigration at that time but I am concerned you are not acting in good faith. From the history of the time it is normal for people to emigrate in stages, especially jews. Please google Jewish immigration and provide sources that this is not the case as this is sourced. 204.4.130.140 (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New Evidence

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/02/23/1203467459974.html

Nicola was unable to get two weeks of to get married GaryGazza (talk)

Strangely, the article doesn't say this, even though it notes 200 people were present. Orderinchaos 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Link to prove her father is Jewish http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=290 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, two of these aren't exactly what they're claimed to be. The first article doesn't say Roxon attended Danby's wedding. The third article doesn't mention anything about Roxon supporting Israel.

I agree and have removed, edited the link. I was researching on the web and planning to edit in an hour. You beat me to it. GaryGazza (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Euryalus (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The second article seems a reasonable source for the claim that Roxon's father (but not Roxon herself) was Jewish. Euryalus (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we unprotect

There is calm now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No edits, per above it must all be agreed to here first. I'm not getting too involved anymore as the cavalry have come to ensure wikipedia policies are followed :-) Timeshift (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but edit waring has stopped and as long as things follow wiki policy edits should be allowed. That is wiki policy. There is no need to stifle the article. I'm sure you won't revert anything you don't like ( against policy) and I willnot put unsourced or irrelevent info ( against wiki policy) GaryGazza (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting an entire book without being specific is not acceptable sourcing. Timeshift (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the above comment inflamatory as it misrepresents me. I have sourced the first chapter of the book as it describes the story well. I suggest you read the first chapter. GaryGazza (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd much rather see a section which can be agreed upon here before supporting an unprotect. The paragraph suggested in the previous section has major logic flow issues and, on looking at the Lillian Roxon article, its lead which incorporates similar information has similar problems (in fact, it leaves me vastly more confused - were they trying to escape fascism in Italy, or in Poland which still in 1937 had a democratic system?). The definition of WP:POINT is making a point to disrupt the encyclopaedia, and if we're going to present something that readers can't comprehend which is poorly worded and full of contradictions just so the article can claim Judaism is part of her heritage (and we should note here that she does not identify as any religion, and that has been confirmed), this is not an improvement on what we have now. Orderinchaos 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As a historian you above comment is wrong. Jews in Europe generally escaped the rise of facism - they did not have to just be in Germany. Think for a sec, you are in Poland and you think Hitler wants to invade so you move to Italy and try to move out of Europe from there as it has a port with access to the sea ( which poland didn't really have) and is more safe than poland. What other contraditions do you see? The contradition you cited is not a contradition but a misunderstanding of history. Jews fled Europe generally afraid of war not just those withing Germany's borders. GaryGazza (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Five *years* earlier? Fascism was not in Poland in 1932, of that I am fairly sure - in fact checking up on the thing, the governments and leaders of that time were Socialist (in the European-SPD mould). The fact Hitler had to invade it in August 1939 and didn't simply annex it as he did with Czechoslovakia in 1938, or form a union with it as with Austria, is instructive. Italy was actually *less* safe than Poland at the time - it was ruled by Mussolini, and in 1927 he had banned emigration (as in, leaving Italy) - many of Western Australia's Italian community actually came here in the 1920s to escape his regime. Mussolini was a fascist. Before accusing me of having my history wrong, I strongly suggest you check your own. Orderinchaos 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are wrong, So you are saying the Jews were so stupid they would wait in Poland for Hitler to invade?!?!?!Hitler was seen in Europe in 1937 as dangerous and could invade Europe. Read about Winston Churchill, look at the published date of Mien Kamf, Annexation of Austria, military build up, threatening speaches by Hitler, look at Jewish immigration...your comments do not make sence. With regard to Italy, Poland had no real port ( Gdansk,Gdynia and Sopot possibly but not really ( read about them)) that was not controlled by the Nazi's. Many Poles travelled to Italy to leave as it had a non-German controlled port and Mussolini would allow them to leave the country. My father a Polish Jew left from an Italian Port in 1938. GaryGazza (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, I forgot a nationalist was in charge of Poland in 1937 - guess his name if you can it starts with P.. Poland was never commie until the soviets invaded.GaryGazza (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My point is though - Hitler wasn't even in power yet in Germany when the Ropschitzs (going purely off what is in the lead off Lillian and the para above) had already left Poland for Italy (in 1932, according to the lead for Lillian). So were they fleeing fascism in Italy where they'd lived for five years, or are the paragraphs leading me to an incorrect conclusion? Orderinchaos 23:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I didn't say "commie" - that's why I clarified socialist (basically a more left version of today's SPD type parties in Europe). There was noone with surname P in charge of Poland in 1937, I'm looking at the Second Polish Republic article right now and there was a long term president in charge. Orderinchaos 23:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read the first chapter of the book and the other sources I provided. I am not going to argue with you if you do not read my sources. GaryGazza (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As already stated by others above, the onus is on you to point us to the direct sentences in your reference that support your assertions, not ours. A chapter or book is not sufficient. Thanks! :-) Timeshift (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you any idea how busy people here are? As a lecturer once berated me in first year, "it's not my job to fix your mess, if I can't find it, it doesn't exist". Orderinchaos 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave this as the current wording, which says they fled to Australia before the outbreak of WWII? There are sufficient sources for this. We will probably never know what Roxon's grandparents thought of the Polish or Italian governments or what was the specific trigger for their departure for their own safety in the 1930's. In any case they are peripheral to the Nicola Roxon article. The single line we currently have in the article proper is all the coverage this point needs. Euryalus (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The above problems were because someone thought 1937 was 1932. I feel that her family history is important and a line about her grandparents excaping the holocaust is relevent.https://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp is another ref. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Lillian Roxon, according to her article, was born in 1932 in Italy, and the article notes her parents had left Poland by that stage. And what on that page is a ref? Orderinchaos 23:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read history as you are being disruptive. i will only coment on the edit GaryGazza (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you do not make any sence. The family was in Poland , it moved to italy as a staging post and then moved to Australia. Makes pefect sence, my did the dame thing.GaryGazza (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the intro to Lillian Roxon. Five years is a long time for a "staging post". As for being disruptive, you are in persistent violation of WP:TALK in editing or removing posts on this talk page, which you've done several times and now been warned for twice. Another instance and you will be blocked. Orderinchaos 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cited wording

Roxon’s grandparents along with her father were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937. Anglicising the family name from Ropschitz to Roxon, her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] She is the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her parents Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists. She is the middle of three sisters. Roxon was strongly influenced by her father who died when she was 10. She was devastated by his death and came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[3]

https://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp and the first chapter of the book.

You didn't answer my question - what on the AJN site is a ref? I don't see anything there related to Roxon or any related matters, upon clicking on it. When I have time tonight I'll have a go at rewording the above - in its present form it jumps from past to present tense far too many times to hold a line, but the content is basically sound (does the source say the father was born over there and migrated with them?). Orderinchaos 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am unhappy with your agressive tone. The link did not work properly there is not need to assume bad faith. I am trying to improve this article but you are being quite rude. Here is the proper link.

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:4emrYAHR5McJ:https://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp%3FpgID%3D4364+nicola+roxon+jew&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3

https://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=4364 GaryGazza (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My edit

I will not enter into the above discussion. Please find my edit below:

Roxon’s grandparents along with her father were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937. Anglicising the family name from Ropschitz to Roxon, her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] She is the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her parents Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists. She is the middle of three sisters. Roxon was strongly influenced by her father who died when she was 10. She was devastated by his death and came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[3]

Please comment on this edit only. Please read the sources I have provided before you comment as this is a policy of wiki. These sources were added to wiki by users other than myself too. I will not respond to bullying or disruptive edits which are from people who have not read the references. GaryGazza (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gary, I am a bit reluctant to enter this debate again, as you have raved on about ALP control and as far as I can see, I am the only ALP member (and with a direct connection to Nicola Roxon too) who has been involved here. I do have a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, I think the wording above is fine and your link in the section above is important. Nevertheless, you do have an over strident tone and do not seem to have done your homework on wikipedia policies. Orderinchaos is an Australian administrator with a great deal of experience and he really is trying to help. Just calm down and work with him. --Bduke (talk) 10:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I was simply concerned that he did not read my sources. I am toning it down. Considering the addition is sourced and you agree I suggest adding it unless someone can disagree ( after reading all sources). GaryGazza (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been two days with no dissent. I call to add the above text immediatly. GaryGazza (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Making demands is not the way to go here - there are still outstanding issues which have not been addressed. Orderinchaos 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Two points - one minor, one major. The minor point - while it is not that contentious an issue, we still have no source for Roxon's father practising as a pharmacist. The major point - the Jewish News article here says Roxon's father did not practice Judaism. However the earlier E-News article describes him as a Jew. So we have conflicting sources, and also the question that if someone is born into a faith but disavows it, should it still be attributed to them? If there is significance in noting the religion of Roxon's relatives, it might be worth noting that Roxon's father, while born Jewish, did not practice the faith. Alternatively, we could note that sources differ on her father's religious beliefs. As a third option we could leave it out because it isn't that significant. Given the amount of research that's gone into this I'd personally support options one or two, but am interested in other's views.

Other than these issues, GaryGazza's proposed wording seems fine. Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The ajn news source is interesting in that Roxon clearly attributes an affinity to the Jewish community because of her father and others, it was a point she noted in her election campaign locally, as such it should be there. note She says she was raised as a non practicing Christian so any inclusion in Jewish categories isnt appropriate. The age article refers to her father as working as a micro biologist and her mother working as a pharmacist, the Her parents Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists sentence should be something like Her father was working as Micro Biologist when he died and her mother then worked as a pharmacist Gnangarra 01:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, we also have an email from her office confirming that she does not ascribe to any faith. The non-practicing Christian bit has also been provided to us - she certainly did not grow up in the faith, although her father's views and values may well have been inspired by his own heritage in Judaism. That much is getting into OR, though. (Any point in looking up the 1975-1977 electoral roll to clarify occupations? I'll be in Melb again in just over a month) Orderinchaos 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is this email, as such you above comment is unsourced. GaryGazza (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not publish emails on wiki, especially when they are exchanged privately in good faith. However I have shown the email in full in private to any good faith editor involved in the situation. I think you're pursuing a red herring here. Orderinchaos 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

She may not ascibe to the faith but she campainged and publically pleged a strong allegence to Isreal. This should be included. I agree with Gnangarra, this is an important point.GaryGazza (talk)

Show us evidence. And not in the AJN or in Jewish community publications. There is ample public evidence Danby has, but I'm not seeing it anywhere for Roxon (did an extensive search on Factiva). Orderinchaos 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for an edit? (The occupation issue still needs resolving but I'm happy to work with this as a draft and figure the other part out later) The content is the same but the flow is improved.

Roxon is the middle of three sisters and is also the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her grandparents were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937. Anglicising the family name from Ropschitz to Roxon, her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] Her parents, Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists, and her father was a strong influence in her life. She was devastated by his death when she was 10 years old, and ultimately came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[3]

Orderinchaos 04:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not big on the both pharmacist only especially when there is are sources that clearly says he was a micro biologist as well. That was what he was doing at the time of his diagnosis with cancer which is a part of the highlighted point of significance in relation to Nicola and the events affect on her. Gnangarra 04:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Gnan's concerns aside, I have no problems with this wording. Good job. Timeshift (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Her mother Lesley trained as a pharmacist, while her father Jack was a microbiologist and emerged as a strong influence... and add from cancer to "his death". Orderinchaos 00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More Sources and new info

Roxon is the middle of three sisters and is also the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her grandparents were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937. Anglicising the family name from Ropschitz to Roxon, her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] Her parents, Lesley and Jack, both trained as pharmacists, and her Jewish[5][6][7] father was a strong influence in her life. She was devastated by his death when she was 10 years old, and ultimately came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[3] Although Roxon does not identify as a Jew, her family's Jewish background has influenced her. She has stated publicly her strong sympathy with Israel - she visited the country in 2003, and is a member of the Labor Friends of Israel committee. [4]

[4]here [5][2] [6][3] Note Roxon's father was Jewish, just didn't got to synagogue. You can still be Jewish or say Catholic and not go to church/practice. [7]Roxon herself called her father a Polish Jew

Roxon clearly attributes an affinity to the Jewish community because of her father and others, it was a point she noted in her election campaign locally, as such it should be there. Her political views on Isreal are important as this is an important issue presently due to terrorism in Australia from groups that dispute Nicola's views. Also, a large amount of people in the party oppose her pro-Israel stance.

GaryGazza (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is getting a bit WP:POINTy, given that this is very minor to the person that is Nicola Roxon (I would think differently if she was a practicing Jew however, such as Michael Danby or Joe Berinson, or had been raised as one, but neither are the case as she was brought up a non-practicing Christian although considers her family's history and background a part of her heritage) and that most of the sources are from the community itself rather than from independent, peer-reviewed sources - and the last sentence in particular is starting to conflict with information we've received privately. Read WP:SYN carefully - it is possible to read multiple sources and, by blending them, come up with an interpretation that none of them promote. I would prefer sticking with the previous version. Orderinchaos 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Roxon clearly attributes an affinity to the Jewish community because of her father and others, it was a point she noted in her election campaign locally, as such it should be there. She has indicated this is one of her strong political views, she is even a member of a faction within labor that supports Israel. It is correct to include one line for a politition of they have a political view on a situation, especially if they officially are part of a faction that supports this. I have done a lot of research to see what factions etc. Nicola is in and this is one of them. This could be easily sourced by calling the labor group supporting israel. Either way is a politition is part of a faction and has been source to be a big supporter then this is relecant. In addition, wiki is not for putting in what a politition tells us to put in. There is a strong source showing that Roxon was emphatic in supporting Israel because of her background. Just because she would prefer something else doesn't mean it isn't true. Adolf Hitler would disagree with his wiki entry. As you and timeshift are in personal contact with Roxon and obviously don't like me that much, there is some bias here. I suggest other users pitch in and we take on board what they say. My edit adds sourced information that is relevant.

The question should be add that Nicola is a member of the Labor Friends of Israel committee and that she has been quoted during the election campaign as saying she has a strong sympathy with Israel. This was part of her presentation to the public of what she stands for. This also neatly ties in with her Jewish background and leaves the reader with how her family effected her political views.

GaryGazza (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So you're willing to go against statements she herself has made to put in stuff about her personal background which is not exactly true, just because a community newspaper which is not peer-reviewed says so a couple of times? This is like the Bregman/Treyvas case all over again. I suggest reading WP:BLP. If the Australian or the Age had commented significantly on it, yes, I could maybe see your point. But nearly all of this is speculation. Furthermore, your refusal to consider my proposal in the previous section, which was simply a reword of yours, suggests that you're never going to be happy with anything anyone else comes up with. I've compromised significantly to try and end this dispute, but you have not compromised at any stage on any point. BTW FoI is a loose alliance and most certainly *not* a faction - she's from the Left faction I believe, along with quite a few Melbourne MHRs. Orderinchaos 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As a member of the Labor Friends of Israel committee that is a clear ( very clear) statement that she supports Isreal. Are you saying that is speculation? Roxon clearly attributes an affinity to the Jewish community because of her father and others, it was a point she noted in her election campaign locally, as such it should be there. She is also quoted as saying she supports isreal because of her family background.

Secondly I accepted your proposal wholeheartedly except I added the new line because another user Gnangarra suggested it and we both feel it is relevant. There was nothing wrong with your proposal it's just there was some more info we tracked down and I added a line. If fact I could say that you are not considering my proposal and the idea of Gnangarra.

There is nothing personal here...I've done research and come up with relevant information.

GaryGazza (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt say or agree to any comment about Support of Isreal I was talking about her father and what relevance his being Jewish has to this article only. I find it rather offensive that you argue for the inclusion of such claim saying that I agreed to it or had any discussion with you about it. You may feel its relevant but you dont speak for me in way, given that you have an second agenda I'm more inclined to think that it isnt as relevant as I first thought. Gnangarra 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Labor Friends of Israel committee" - where is the proof? "she supports isreal because of her family background." - where is the proof? Saying C is true because A and B are true is a clear case of WP:SYN - we can't say that, because we don't know that. You keep making these statements over and over again, but have never provided a shred of evidence - a couple of biased local publications are not going to convince me. We are talking about a public figure who makes statements which are published in major newspapers all the time - daily, even - yet not one of them has been about Israel. The fact you can only find AJN sources on this actually suggests to me that either the media didn't consider it important, or that it arose from speculation within the Jewish community rather than her own words. I have since talked to a couple of friends who are within the Jewish community in Melbourne, who have looked at this page, and are of the opinion that this is a highly political situation with vested interests where you are actually pushing one side of the debate (somewhat unfairly on Roxon) rather than being a neutral observer. If Danby and Roxon were to be closely aligned as you suggest, then why is Roxon in the left wing of the party and Danby in the right wing? I shall quote, with permission, from the email I received from that person (who wishes it to be known they have never met Roxon):

"Supporting Israel" is a loaded term, and is essentially within the Jewish community synonymous with "...against the Palestinians". While to some observers it may appear a neutral expression of support, it has years of history within the community and is coupled with a belief that Australia and other countries should assist Israel militarily, and that the Jewish community should work towards this end. This is not uncontroversial within the community. In fact it is very controversial. Danby publicly supports this, and within the ALP he is almost isolated on the issue. It has long been a trick employed by the more "hardline" elements to "recruit" to their cause those seen as sympathetic or who have some level of Jewishness themselves. Reading the shrill tones of debate on the page you asked me to review I would suggest that you have a campaigner on your hands, and should simply remind him of the old saying that "the absence of such does not always conceal it" - or better worded, "if you look under every rock, you will not always find a conspiracy".

As for your point-pushing on this page - this conversation is not going to extend indefinitely. If you have a contribution to make, make it. If you do not, I suggest desisting now before someone concludes you are a point-pushing single purpose account with no purpose here but to disrupt the encyclopaedia, and blocks you indefinitely. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Orderinchaos 00:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want to confirm that the information is correct, do you have a problem with that? If so then I would say you are lieing my 5 sources are correct. I believe you though, just need to see proof please email this info. Do you have anything to hide? GaryGazza (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cease the personal attacks and insinuations now. You have been warned repeatedly. Orderinchaos 19:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break, and a proposal for consensus

I think we have debated this isssue to the point of diminishing returns. We all seem to agree that at least two of Roxon's grandparents were Jewish, that her father was born into a Jewish family but didn't practice his faith, and that Roxon herself is a non-practicing Christian.

We then have a great welter of speculation about how any of this influenced Roxon's decision-making, whether Roxon supports Israel and if so why, and whether she attended Michael Danby's wedding and if not why not.

It is surely time to bring this to a close. In the interests of resolving discussion, I suggest we adopt the wording proposed by Orderinchaos above as a consensus proposal:

Roxon is the middle of three sisters and is also the niece of the late Australian journalist and Sydney Push member Lillian Roxon.[2] Her paternal grandparents were Jewish and migrated from Poland to Australia in 1937. Anglicising the family name from Ropschitz to Roxon, her grandfather worked as a GP in Gympie and Brisbane.[1] Her mother Lesley trained as a pharmacist, while her father Jack was a microbiologist. He was a strong influence in her life and she was devastated by his death from cancer when she was 10 years old. Roxon ultimately came to the view that "governments have got a role to make sure they can help people in circumstances they can't control - either through their health failing or an accident".[1]

Support or opposition welcome. Euryalus (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

can the sources supporting this be included so that its clear what is being used to for what. Gnangarra 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A small point, but Nicola Roxon probably has two sets of grandparents, maternal as well as paternal. Unless they all were Jewish and all migrated from Poland? Or by not being Jewish they aren't notable? •Florrie•leave a note• 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good point, I have added the word "paternal" to the proposal to clarify. Euryalus (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I know I've come to this late, but reading this page and then the sources provided below I'm curious about the comment He was a strong influence in her life. Is this inferred from the two sources or does Roxon say those words in another article? The Age article gives due weight to her mother, Lesley, whereas this article seems to give undue weight to her father, Jack.

• Roxon is one of three sisters who were brought up by their mother after the death of their father when Roxon was 10.
• Money was tight and Roxon's mother, Lesley, worked part-time as a pharmacist "all through our growing up"
• Both parents drummed into their children the importance of education
• Her upbringing certainly left her with strong feminist leanings
• Her sisters and mother are still heavily involved in her life

I'm not suggesting that this needs to be referenced in this article, just wondering why - it would seem - so much weight is towards the paternal side. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another small point in this proposed paragraph which may need clarification, is the stated migration of the family from Poland to Australia in 1937. Unless this entry for Lillian Roxon (written by Robert Milliken) at the Australian Dictionary of Biography is incorrect, Izydor Ropschitz moved to the Italian Riviera in 1926. The family moved to Britain in 1938 and arrived in Australia in August, 1940. I'm curious to know what information regarding the move is given in the actual biography. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources (the same as used in the current article):
1. Niece of Lillian Roxon, and the quote relative to her father's death
2. Grandfather Jewish and a GP in Gympie and Brisbane
There are some additional sources for these points further up this page, but these two seem adequate for the limited claims being made by this wording. Euryalus (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please send me a copy of Nicola's email to you regarding her viewpoint. After I verify that it is actually in existance I should be able to confirm.

<blank email>addr blanked you should enable email in your preferences 121.221.84.238 (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GaryGazza (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirm what precisely? Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wish to confirm your statements, please email me this email. I have done a lot of work researching this article and want to make sure you are telling the truth. I have updated my preferences to have email, please email me. GaryGazza (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF, what information do you wish to gather from the email that hasnt a;ready been presented. Gnangarra 10:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary, what e-mail are you referring to? --Bduke (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe its the one where OIC indicated he consulted with an outside source unrelated to the subject and ask for an explanation of the Australian Jewish political situation so that he could better understand what Gazza is talking about. OIC posted the section from the email saying the person had consented to that being posted. WHat I understand is that Gazza is asking for the article to say the subject supports Israel, where as the email says that such a statement is from an extremist element trying to make all opinion with a Jewish connection as being definitively anti Palestinian. Gnangarra 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to comprimise but I must see the source email as it is improtant to your case. I provided you with 5 sources and you have justified that they are wrong. I need to see this. Either email it to me or post it here. I provided all info to you. GaryGazza (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say there was an email from Nicola? I can only see where OIC asked his friends for input. It's really not all that relevant other than as background information as it's plainly OR and I'm not sure why you're insisting you should have access to it. Sarah 13:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See below:

Correct, we also have an email from her office confirming that she does not ascribe to any faith. The non-practicing Christian bit has also been provided to us - she certainly did not grow up in the faith, although her father's views and values may well have been inspired by his own heritage in Judaism. That much is getting into OR, though. (Any point in looking up the 1975-1977 electoral roll to clarify occupations? I'll be in Melb again in just over a month) Orderinchaos 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide this email.

GaryGazza (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You see, there is something of an issue here. I know to some extent who my other fellow editors are. There's an element of trust with them, and I can see where they have edited, what they have achieved. Therefore I can show them private communication and know that they can be trusted with it. However, in contrast, your contributions are somewhat one-sided, you have failed to show good faith towards other editors, have not compromised in any way to date and in particular your slights towards me on other talk pages and in other venues are discouraging as an indication of collaboration. I maintain my offer that I will show any good faith correspondent what I have received (most already have seen it), but my good faith does not extend to assuming it in the presence of the contrary. Trust has to be earned, I'm afraid. Orderinchaos 16:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not accept your offer as I see a perceived bias and it is as if mates are ganging up. You can remove any personal info from the email. It is a source and I do not believe you....if you she wrote about her Jewish background it isn't personal. Also, there are 5 sources that disagree with your comments and they are public - sorry I need evidence to believe you. GaryGazza (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not feel any abiding need to convince you - our policy of consensus does not require editors to get personal, individual agreement from each individual disputant. Furthermore, you have ignored the extremely valid points raised above by Florrie about WP:UNDUE - our one solid, reliable source (the Age article) focuses on both parents but particularly the role of her mother and sisters. There is an additional source - the Hansard for 11 November 1998, in her Address in Reply to the Governor General's Speech on p.51-55, where she makes the statement: "My parents taught me at a young age about fairness and decency, generosity, having a go and helping others. When my father died, when I was 10, my mother taught me about independence and integrity. These values were the foundation that ultimately led me to the Labor Party and they are the yardstick against which I continue to make my judgments today. If I can leave this House having upheld and furthered those values, I will be very proud to have lived up to my family’s hopes and aspirations." [4] Orderinchaos 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I thought you were genuine but something is fishy...you don't want to present the email...hmmmmm.....GaryGazza (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The 8 or 9 people I have shared it with can attest that nothing is fishy. Interesting that you have no wish whatsoever to deal with the real issue of undue weight, and instead want to raise non-existent questions about my credibility. It further convinces me that you never wished to compromise and wish the debate to be entirely on your terms. Unfortunately, it isn't played that way, and you can either choose to work with the project, or be taken to dispute resolution, as you are holding back badly-needed development work at the project by wasting our collective time. Orderinchaos 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the e-mail from Nicola Roxon's constituency office. I can confirm that it comes from one of her staffers in her office whom I know and trust. It say what OiC says above - "Ms Roxon does not self identify as Jewish". It is not proper to post this e-mail and this should be the end of it. --Bduke (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the email now, too, (thanks OIC), and I basically agree with what Brian has said above. It certainly shouldn't be posted here - sorry Gary. Sarah 02:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That email has nothing to do with her father. All the sources say he is Jewish. GaryGazza (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is about Nicola Roxon, not her father. This seems to have been forgotten. Orderinchaos 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Roxon's Political Views

This article has banned all mentions of Roxon's political views. Her views on Gay marriage, her membership of the Israel comittie....hmmm me thinks the labor party contols this article. One would think her politics and things she campaigned with should be added. Of course, even if there are five sources that quotes that she supports Isreal because of her Jewish heritage an unknown and hidden email among labor supporters prohibits its inclusion. Post the email in it's entirity here. Blank out the personal stuff...Of course because I don't support labor I'm not alowed to post. Why can't we add her political views and memberships in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gary, want to show us the email I purportedly sent to you containing offensive nazi material? Oh, you can't produce it (nor provide my email address), so you can't be genuine, yada yada etc etc. (how ironic!) Timeshift (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your baseless Labor Party accusations must stop now. Timeshift (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary, you are welcome to propose inclusion of material on Roxon's views on gay marriage, or any other issue which should be considered for inclusion in the article - provided it is is neutral in tone, well-sourced and doesn't give undue weight to minor issues.

What you are not welcome to do is make personal comments about other contributors, such as accusing them of anti-semitism or of being part of some Labor Party conspiracy simply because they don't agree with your proposed content changes.

Your message above also suggest that your interest in contributing to this article is because you "don't support labor". If so, you have the same point-of-view problem as you accuse others of having. Contributions should be presented from a neutral point of view. Don't edit this article if your reasons for doing so are anti-labor or pro-labor. Only edit the article if you can separate your editing from your political leanings.

Several days ago I suggested that personal attacks weren't a great way of advancing your case, but that everyone had been provoked a little and we should all let bygones be bygones. Some others have done that - your message above suggests you haven't. So once again, please lay off the comments on other editors and focus on the content of the article. There are multiple proposed wordings on this talk page. Some concerns were raised with yours, which you have not responded to. That would be a good place to go back to in bringing this content discussion to a close. Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started a new section, it is very confusing and I ask that you re-input your ideas below so I can answer them. GaryGazza (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think her views on gay marriage, which depending on which source you read range from mildly pro to mildly anti, can be correctly ascertained at this time - keep in mind firstly (speaking from some real world experience here) that politicians do speak to an audience, and secondly are bound by caucus solidarity. In 2004, caucus (which at that time was dominated by the Right in the party) decided to take a particular course of action. All members are bound by it. So there's what members will say privately (and to whom) and what members will say publicly - they might tell a gay activist that they support gay marriage but have been unable to convince their colleagues, but believe the time is coming, while telling the media that they understand the community disquiet on such an issue and support the decision that has been made. Making ambiguous statements on hot-button moral issues such as that, abortion and cannabis legalisation has become an artform over the years. A very good example - look at Peter Garrett's statements on environmental issues before and after he became a Labor MP. Being a politician actually restricts one's freedom of speech and action, believe it or not (something a lot of backbenchers learn to their horror early in their careers...) Orderinchaos 04:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not support any political party. She is a vocal suporter of Isreal and is a member of labor friends of Isreal. I believe that is a political view. Isreal is in the news on a daily basis and she is sourced in 2 sources to be a vocal supportor. Why can't a line be included? GaryGazza (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "supports Israel" is too loaded a term to place in an article about a politician, as explained further up - see WP:WEASEL. The two sources both have a vested interest in claiming high profile figures subscribe to their cause, so cannot possibly be seen as reliable or neutral. Making the same assertions over and over again do not make them any more correct. Orderinchaos 08:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

She is a memer of the Labor Friends of Isreal. I am looking to cooperate here. A politition that joins a commitie and campaigns with this should have this in her article. What source do you require and I will get one that is not from a Jewish newspaper. By the way the jewish newspaper in question is a non-partisan news paper. GaryGazza (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you wish to address the material concerns that have been raised by others I think we're about done here. Orderinchaos 14:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about possible new additions

I am serious in improving this article and will not respond to any comments not related to this. Please state your specific concerns after this message and I will respond. The above is much too confusing.

1. Your text related to her Jewish family background should be added as it is agreed. My only concern now is that it implies that Roxon's father is not Jewish, was not born in Poland and did not escape the Nazis. This is sourced in the book. Not a major issue but .

2. From my perspective, an wiki entry about a politician should include their political views that they have expressed over their career. She is known in the Jewish community for her support of Israel and membership of the labour pro-Israel group.

* Sources - we need non-biased sources to prove her committee membership and view on the issue. * Wording, I'm sure it is possible to word this in a way that doesn't misinterpret her views. *Relevance: Israel/Palestine is a major international issue and she is a member of the Australian government who has influence on our foreign policy.

3. Gay Marriage : Reading through Age articles this has generated press coverage and is a political view. It should be added as it is relevant. She has a view on a contentious issue, she was publicly debated on this issue, she has been forced to change her view.

See this link, she really pissed off the party: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/10/1092102440370.html

Please add issues that you see and lets work together to improve this article. No more nonsense just serious points. Also, a little fair play here please the treatment I have received was heavy handed. I will only respond to comments about the article. GaryGazza (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Webdiary columnist" is a source? This is attempting to ascribe the paper's credibility to all of the columns it publishes. While I have a lot of respect for Rodney Croome, he is a campaigner, not a writer - this should always be remembered when reviewing what people have to say on a situation. Read WP:RS at least on what constitutes a reliable source. Orderinchaos 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I have to re-post my comments, but as they have not been addressed above, here they are again.

• [...] I know I've come to this late, but reading this page and then the sources provided below I'm curious about the comment He was a strong influence in her life. Is this inferred from the two sources or does Roxon say those words in another article? The Age article gives due weight to her mother, Lesley, whereas this article seems to give undue weight to her father, Jack.

• Roxon is one of three sisters who were brought up by their mother after the death of their father when Roxon was 10.
• Money was tight and Roxon's mother, Lesley, worked part-time as a pharmacist "all through our growing up"
• Both parents drummed into their children the importance of education
• Her upbringing certainly left her with strong feminist leanings
• Her sisters and mother are still heavily involved in her life

I'm not suggesting that this needs to be referenced in this article, just wondering why - it would seem - so much weight is towards the paternal side. •Florrie•leave a note• 02:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another small point in this proposed paragraph which may need clarification, is the stated migration of the family from Poland to Australia in 1937. Unless this entry for Lillian Roxon (written by Robert Milliken) at the Australian Dictionary of Biography is incorrect, Izydor Ropschitz moved to the Italian Riviera in 1926. The family moved to Britain in 1938 and arrived in Australia in August, 1940. I'm curious to know what information regarding the move is given in the actual biography. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the article, I think the edit as it is is fine. Your comments make sence but it really has been argues to death.

Anyone can add their thoughts on issues 2 and 3? GaryGazza (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to where the above points have been 'argued to death'. I have concerns over their verifiabilty and I would appreciate some discussion. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've provided 10 sources for the four lines. Florrie, am happy to discuss though. Have you read all the sources, they are pretty direct. That is a lot of sourcing for four lines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) diff

No, I don't have access to the Milliken book, which is why I have asked, twice; :

• [...] Unless this entry for Lillian Roxon (written by Robert Milliken) at the Australian Dictionary of Biography is incorrect, Izydor Ropschitz moved to the Italian Riviera in 1926. The family moved to Britain in 1938 and arrived in Australia in August, 1940. I'm curious to know what information regarding the move is given in the actual biography. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Does the Milliken biography differ to the Milliken on-line entry? If there is a discrepancy with dates between sources then a less definitive statement would be better, similar to that which currently exists in the article. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Florrie, Roxon in her speech to parliament said her father death had a significant influence on her we may need to reword if this isnt being conveyed. Gary your right this has been discussed to death, the current has content has consensus(consensus doesnt need 100% support). IMHO the discussions have become so circular that everybody has reached a point where they are exhausted and no longer consider alternatives. I suggest that the article be left as is for a month or so(this discussion is here so readers can see all POV) let people research maybe additional sources will become available, remember consensus can change. Gnangarra 02:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to support leaving this paragraph of the article exactly as is. We have debated a host of extremely simialr wordings, speculated at length on the relevance of Roxon's father's religious background and come up with very little to show for it. There's nothing wrong with the current article wording - let's leave the thing alone and if we all still care on (say) April 1 we can revive this debate. Euryalus (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me too! Timeshift (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Orderinchaos 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Roxon's father had an influence on her (though I thought it referred to being 'devastated by his death' but there may be another reference) I was merely pointing out that Roxon has acknowledged the influence of both her parents and I queried the weight given to her father's influence in the article. I sympathise with exhaustion but I didn't realise the points I tried to raise had previously reached a consensus. •Florrie•leave a note• 08:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here - the points you raised hadn't actually occurred to me prior to your raising them, and they do somewhat change the entire character of the debate which has proceeded to this point. I think that's a good thing. Orderinchaos 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, we should add sourced and relevant material. You can't arbitrarily say 2months for a new addition. We must draw a line and there is sufficient sourcing and approval to add the test as it is now. Also the article as it is is wrong.

Also, please discuss issues 2 and 3.

GaryGazza (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to dictate the terms of discussion, Gary. If you want to work with us, fine. But if you don't, we are going to have to move on without you - this stalemate has lasted more than long enough. Orderinchaos 09:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

1. As stated previously you are receiving messages from Nicola's staffers in relation to this article. I think that is a slight bias. This is not a personal attack, but it is against wiki policy to have the person in the article edit it as far as I know. Please respond to this instead of deleting this. Please do not threaten me as I am right to ask this.

Receiving an e-mail from someone to clarify a discussion on the talk page is a country mile away from having the subject of the article edit it. Assume good faith and stop drawing a long bow. --Bduke (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian's correct that asking Nicola's office for information is a far cry from having her edit the article herself, but just to clarify for you Gary, you're actually incorrect - it isn't against policy to edit your own article. It's just discouraged since people usually find it very hard to write about themselves in an NPOV manner but even at that, it's just as guidelines (WP:AUTO and WP:COI) not policies. Sarah 10:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that it appears that this staffer is a friend of him. Why would a staffer write a 'personal' email with reference to this article if there wasn't a relationship between the two parties. He also has been responsible for 45% of the responses here. Considering this relationship ( perceived or otherwise) maybie it is best he stepped back from the discussion for a while to let other uses express their opinions without undue influence. Bduke you did the same thing because you are a Labor party member I'd expect him to do the same. There was also no need to send thretening messages to my talk board for a genuine request for clarification. GaryGazza (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said previously, I don't even know the person. I got a single email from them. How does this constitute bias, or friendship? It seems that you are engaging in a systematic campaign of ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with you. Orderinchaos 10:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I withdraw my claim of bias. GaryGazza (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

2. The wording has been agreed, please respond with your reasons for waiting 2 months to add sourced information and leave incorrect information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryGazza (talk • contribs) 09:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually what seems closest to consensus at this point is not to change the wording at all. I am not aware of any other "agreement" despite several attempts by various people to propose different words. Unless something new and groundbreaking is proposed, it would appear we have extensively debated the issue and there are no agreed changes. Euryalus (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. My rewording was only fixing grammar/tenses/flow on what was already there and only reflected one minor content change as highlighted by Gnangarra, that the father was actually a microbiologist and not a pharmacist. Orderinchaos 11:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

New evidence has come to light that suggests this debate will soon be over and the article can (hopefully) be unprotected. Orderinchaos 11:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do tell...I hope you are not trying to get me blocked like all yor threats on my talk page. I have only asked you for clarification that this contact was not your friend. Can you stop treatening me and just add points to this article.

Can we add she is a member of the labor friends of Isreal comittie? There is a section where she lists her memberships. Please list your reasons.

GaryGazza (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GaryGazza has been positively identified by checkuser as a sock of banned user User:Bruce99999, who in various guises has disrupted the Nicola Roxon article persistently since their first edit to it on the evening of 24 November 2007, and has added numerous BLP violations to the Philip Brady (broadcaster) article. I suggest that we archive this whole drama and leave it be - there isn't a huge consensus to change it. Orderinchaos 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My god, the more I and others look into this, the more I realise we're dealing with a serial troll who's been here since April last year and does pretty much nothing but vandalise articles and talk pages related to radio personalities (and for some reason Nicola Roxon), push obscure points of view (often in violation of BLP) and throw around accusations (sometimes even direct threats) at Wiki editors almost as readily. In retrospect I think the only reason he managed to stay under his current username for as long as he did (most of the others literally survived for 10 or 15 edits over a "spree") was his steady maintenance of the attack on this article rather than others he normally focuses on, and the fact this article is in a relative backwater Wiki-wise. All the editing patterns, types of accusations, even the grammatical errors are identical. Certainly some lessons learned on how to deal with future ones. Orderinchaos 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to oficially state I did not start editing until this year. It is quite clear this admin works for Nicola Roxon or is being the mouthpiece of her. Sad really, how labor works. I have sent a number of emails to the Jewish groups who wrote those sources. They will return to get rid of the labour bias and bullying. It is like the communists, either agree or get killed off. GARYGAZZA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.192.195 (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not a wise move to post here. You've actually just confirmed to everyone present what to look for in the history. Orderinchaos 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary, the IP address you just posted from has a contribution history stretching back two years, and includes attack edits on the Nicola Roxon page going back to 2007. To post from this address claiming you never edited Wikipedia until 2008 (and presumably the 2007 Roxon edits were by some other random user who just happened also to care about this article) is just nonsense.

I think its fair to say I've tried to assume good faith towards you here, but there comes a point when this becomes impossible. If you want to edit Wikipedia in the future you will need to have a serious read of the policies on original research,neutral points of view and no personal attacks, and take the contents to heart. Otherwise you'll find your experiences here as pointless as this one, which wasted your and others time and resulted in no notable changes to the article. Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

One acronym - LOL!!! Karma is a female dog. As for the ad hominem attack 'sad really, how labor works' it just shows that yet more labor slagging is based on accidental or deliberate ignorance. Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)