Talk:Noel Crichton-Browne

Removed content

Some content was removed by User:Sarah per WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV today. I would argue WP:BLP also applies. As the decision has been disputed, I shall look at it here:

• a controversial figure in Western Australian politics - weasel word.
• Extensive revelations of details of alleged actions/abuses - WP:NPOV#UNDUE, WP:BLP (was he found guilty in a court of it? it seems to have been the usual order of titillating media coverage ending in a political outcome) Just because the media print it doesn't mean it's true - if it was, we wouldn't have Media Watch or the Press Council. Matter of taking things carefully into consideration.
• "Power broker" section - I'm not even sure how it could be argued that this section, referenced as it stands, could have been sustained - it is extremely weakly justified and definitely not from a peer-reviewed source or any such.

Orderinchaos 05:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the time to be specific. I utterly disagree with everything you have written. Obviously, I have no further role to play in this article's development. Retarius | Talk 05:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, I actually kind of agree with Retarius here. One can't write at all rationally about Crichton-Browne's political career without mentioning his internal activities in the Liberal Party. The current article looks severely incomplete and whitewashed. Rebecca (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be written about obviously, but must be sourced. Orderinchaos 08:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that quite a few things have recently been deleted from this article, and request some further justification for those deletions.

• The term "controversial" (deleted from the article) is being very kind to Mr Crichton-Browne, considering the many scandals that have dogged his political career. He first made national headlines in the 1990s when his wife took out a restraining order against him, and said he assaulted her. The restraining order was later withdrawn, but not the allegations. His notoriety continued with sexually harassing remarks to News Ltd journalist Colleen Egan, and involvement with pariah Brian Burke and controversial land deals. There are even books that detail Crichton-Brown's notoriety. To call him "controversial" is an understatement.
• Claim of too much on abuses: I'm surprised that it is said to be violating WP:NPOV#UNDUE in relation to Crichton-Browne. If anything, the article does not have enough information about his past scandals. The reason is that he is nationally famous specifically for his scandals, and not much else. A scandal does not have to be in a court of law to be in Wikipedia, if the entire mainstream media reports it. His wife's claims he bashed her, or the verbal harassment of the journalist were political scandals of the highest order in Australia.
• Power Broker: Why was this term removed? I agree that the section heading should have been removed, but all the information went out as well. "Power broker" is commonly used in the media to describe Crichton-Browne, and was in the reference that was also deleted.

I don't believe WP:NPOV#UNDUE justifies the removal of text about scandals a politician was involved in, if that is what the politician is most famous for. Politicians such as Noel Crichton-Browne and Milton Orkopoulos have reputations that are beyond saving, and I don't think they need special protection in Wikipedia.--Lester 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lester, if you want to add material back, go for it, just find adequate sources for it first. The reason I removed material was that it was unsourced or inadequately sourced material which put Wikipedia in the position of making editorial comments as the primary voice instead of just reporting what other sources have said (which is what we're supposed to do on Wikipedia). As I said to the person who wrote this, I think most of it would be okay if it was sourced properly to reliable sources and without synthesis. Sarah 01:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC) The problem with "Power Broker" is it said a, b and c called him a "power broker", therefore he is a power broker and because c said it after he left the liberal party that means he was still powerful after being expelled. That's not acceptable. If you want to write about him being a "power broker" then go for it but just find proper sources to reference it to. That's really what it all comes down to - adequate sourcing, no sythesis and not making editorial comments as the primary voice. Sarah 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, here's my proposal for what should be added. The word controversial. The wife bashing allegation, which is more than just titillating tabloid rubbish, as it was tabled in parliament and was a key factor in his downfall. The journalist incident. The controversial land deals and Brian Burke affiliation. The word "power broker" with references that use the same term. Of course, such information would have to include many references (more than the article previously had), which may take some days. Before doing so, I will await a response from Orderinchaos to check for possible objections before proceeding.--Lester 02:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Object inference that orderinchaos is the final point to check (a) this is wikipedia where consensus and coperation exists - no one individual holds a 'key' (b) he had pointed out to retarius the new issues re BLP - if you havent read the issues surrounding that yet - read them before posting ay ideas here (c) the main issue was that there was inadequate referencing on a BLP issue 'adding something back' without references clearly contravenes the issue that orderinchaos has pointed out - to suggest putting something back without refs is asking to be reverted (d) as to what may or not be true in anything to do with this character is tainted by bad press for quite a while which could have been earned either way - he might have deserved it and he may have been set up by some journos - as to whether any of what you suggest goes back into mainspace must abide by the new BLP rules - read em - you dont need orderinchaos to re-hash em for you SatuSuro 04:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Satu - although checking with other regulars on these poorly-visited areas has become somewhat normal practice, whether for good or bad, but should never substitute for a true consensus. Personally speaking I object to the word "power broker", not because he wasn't one, but because it was coined by the media and is generally not considered useful in political academia. I came close to the line in an essay once writing "unelected power players" but that was in a political science essay where power is being expressly studied in the context of its relationships. I prefer "let the facts tell the story" as an approach - if it's true, it's there to be seen. "Controversial" in this case is a weasel word and really shouldn't go back in at all - we're judging rather than telling by using it. Also be careful what you do add - are these stories *really* notable to a person who was in parliament for 16 years and has had some participation in public life after his time there? If you're after odd stuff, his attempt to stuff candidates into safe seats at the 1996 federal election cost the Liberals the seats of Moore and Curtin for a term (the latter a blue-ribbon seat) when the former Liberal incumbents won them as independents, one of them (Rocher in Curtin) at least implicitly endorsed by Howard. That isn't too hard to cover, is unquestionably notable (I'd say he's actually better known for that than the comment to the journalist, which got brief press at the time then faded from view) and there's no BLP concerns so long as it's covered in a detached manner. Be aware though just to what extent BLP has changed/tightened due to the changes on Tuesday. Orderinchaos 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(As an unrelated aside - no, wait, I'll bring it up at the noticeboard.) Orderinchaos 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you could write about the power broker thing if you were careful to say this is how he has been described but I don't support it being in a special section and I certainly don't support the way it was worded before as a synthesis of media headlines. I agree with OIC re the use of the word "controversial" and I am not in favour of it, especially not in the intro. The article needs to be rounded and what Lester has described above sounds like an all round negative article as every bit he's proposing adding is negative information. But in general terms, I don't object to well sourced material being added as long as it complies with UNDUE, BLP, V, etc, though I think users need to be very careful with this article, to be sure they run very close to very reliable sources and avoid undue weight. The comment about the journalist is just titillating tabloid journalism in my view. (Replying to SatuSuro) I don't think anyone is suggesting adding back unsourced information at all. Sarah 05:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I should hope not SatuSuro 05:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if one wants to put in negative information into an article which is at best a stub or post-stub, there is some incumbent duty to do the research oneself to balance it out, especially if there isn't a substantial group of people already paying attention (this article was created only a week or so ago). Certainly some of the concerns in the wider BLP community seem to reflect such an idea. Orderinchaos 07:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to look at it. The only problem is, the "positive" aspects of Crichton-Browne's career are much harder to find. The controversial aspects are easy, as they made national headlines - the low hanging fruit. Try looking through The Sydney Morning Herald or The Age for some positive achievements by Crichton-Browne. Instead, you'll find articles about accusations of abuse of his wife, and you'll find negative sounding information about his power-broking exploits. These are the things he is nationally famous for. If we mandate that any new information about this controversial figure is counterbalanced with some new positive information, then it doesn't move forward. What we are left with is a stub, which is what we have now. If it wasn't for User:Retarius we'd have nothing at all.--Lester 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Power-broker"

I said I wouldn't edit this article again and I meant it. However, as it's become a subject of contention on this page, I'd like to explain what I was doing before I was so delightfully interrupted.

• I originally had a lot of material on the Parliamentary career of Mr Crichton-Browne. That was good stolid stuff that I copied from the Parliamentary handbook. It was just staccato CV stuff and I was gradually smoothing it out to make a more fluent read. If you go back to the first edit on the history log and just page through you'll see what happened from there. I've always believed that the Commonwealth asserts its copyright in material to prevent it being used for misrepresentation (Eg. the Coat of Arms) and to prevent shysters from purporting to own it and sell it for their own profit. The facts in the CV are public domain and I would have rewritten it to remove the identicality to the handbook. I also, obviously, thought it was "notable". That also seems to me to be an utterly subjective tar-baby and I very rarely bother to dispute about it. When it got cut, I thought, "Okay, let it go. Kick on."

• Next we come to "Power Broker". Mattinbgn didn't cut it but he wanted citation. Now, I never said that Mr Crichton-Browne was a power broker. Obviously, political parties don't have official office-bearer positions listed in their Memoranda of Association such as "Head-kicker", "Toe-cutter", "Attack Dog", "Numbers Man", "Enforcer" or "Power Broker". The best one can do is show that those people who take an interest in the matter regard someone as such. I was in the process of doing that, but the purpose of the heading was not to simply introduce the assertion that he is a power broker. There are thousands of words I was going to put thereafter to show his crucial role in the affairs of the Liberal Party over many years. To quote a word that a certain scribe wrote to me about another matter, I never intended this to be a "pillory" for the subject. I used the expressions that some see as objectionable, such as "controversial", in the honest belief that they were very bland words. OIC commented above that the incident with Colleen Egan is "faded from view". Actually, I'd say it's one of the few things most people really can specify off-hand. The complex stuff is too...complex. I was looking to cover a lot of that neglected ground here.

• The activities of Mr Crichton-Browne as a lobbyist are the more recent phase of his career. I would have written thousands of words on that.

• I've been repeatedly accused of POV-pushing here. The only view I have is that this article is now hopelessly deadlocked. Retarius | Talk 11:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)