Talk:Q Society of Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Urgent cleaning

A highly partisan article, nothing encyclopedic, needs urgent cleaning. Elmoro (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you qualify your statement? As it stands now it is merely unqualified blurb. RaoulMachal (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

1

In my opinion, this article should either be thoroughly rewritten or deleted, as in its current form it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria on objectivity at all. Phrases like "America's outspoken researcher and best-selling author on Islam and Jihad", "islamized suburbs of Australia's capital cities", and especially "Some critics of the Q Society allege that its actions are racist. This is incorrect as Islam is not a race and Q Society actually promotes a multi-ethnic society." are ill-founded and sheer propaganda for this organization. Hereticus obstinatus (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, this article does not follow Wikipedia policy, specifically NPOV (Neutral Point of View), and therefore may be deleted, unless revised. Raoulmachal should read Robert Spencer's Wikipedia page, which has an extensive Critcism section at the end. The statement about racism was actually written by myself, but Raoulmachal deleted most of it, completely changing the meaning. I stated that Islam is not a race, therefore racist is an incorrect term. Instead, the article displays religious prejudice (rather than racial prejudice), in my opinion. However legitimate criticisms of Islam should be stated in a less aggressive manner. - --Kookaburra17 12:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC).

• • Absolutely. The Q Society is a far-Right hate group, closely allied to Australian Neo-Nazi and racist groups. Morandir (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • Morandir, Q Society is neither a "far-Right hate group" nor allied with any neo-nazis or racists. What do you hope to achieve by writing such a libelous, defamatory comment here? I suggest you read up on libelous defamation under common law, and then revisit your above comments. Disagreeing with particular views and opinions in a civilised manner is one thing. Posting libelous remarks on a public forum has a distinct legal quality. RaoulMachal (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Content issues

I've had to repeatedly revert the additions by Raoulmacha due to neutrality issues. For this edit

• The Youtube video and the blog/press release from the Australia First Party are not reliable sources
• The Herald Sun article [1] does not actually mention Anthony Main, nor the "two other perpetrators". The article just states that the "Police received a report of an assault at Somerton on Tuesday evening. The matter is being investigated."

-Keepdry (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You will have to continue to "revert" as noone has appointed you judge, jury and chief bender of facts. If you have a personal interest in whitewashing the violent stand-over tactics of notorious bullies like Main, please do so on your own blog. Main is identified on this and a number of other videos recorded at the event, including the police video. Police reports against Main were filed for assault. Feel free to inquire with VicPol if you have doubts.

RaoulMachal (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you managed to interpret my concerns over WP:RS as 'whitewashing'. It is a basic foundation Wikipedia that content should be directly supported by the use of reliable third party sources. As I stated before, the Youtube video is not a reliable source that doesn't directly support your assertions. The Australia First Party article is questionable given that it is a political party it is subject to WP:BIASED. It is not up to me to verify your claims - it is your duty. -Keepdry (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside WP:RS and WP:BIASED I want to start by acknowledging that Raoulmachal has been more thorough with referencing in his last edit. I'm still concerned that -

• the language being used isn't [[WP:NPOV]|neutral] i.e. "radical". Other language e.g. "illegal" and the presence and description of Anthony Main, while it may be factual, isn't relevant to the article and can be construed as being used to poison the well.
• there are accusations of assault and injuries on both sides of the picket, see the ABC article [2]. The Herald Sun reference may also be to an accusation by a protestor claims. Either both sides' accusations should be included or neither.

MaxU24 (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I have not written the original entry for this particular event. But when someone attempts to present the public with a whitewash of the violent actions of certain persons and groups, I will put the narrative straight, and either myself or others will continue to do so.

ABC is a highly politicised organisation and in no position to claim any more credibility than reporters from News Ltd, Fairfax or the police report of the event itself. Up to 100 was the number given in the police report. The video footage is evidence the ABC's claim of 200 protesters is exaggerated.

As to terminology: Standing next to the entrance of a venue with placards, without blocking the entrance and vocalising your opinion is legal. Picketing or blockading the entrance, impeding the freedoms for others and bodily assault are illegal.

Writing articles, having a debate and using democratic means makes you a moderate. Behaving in an illegal manner and employing violence and intimidation to push your political agenda makes you a radical..

Hence the use of "radical" and "illegal".

The presence of Anthony Main and his cohort, who have no connection with or documented interest in Mr Wilders, Islam in Holland, human rights violations motivated by Islamic scripture and tradition, or any topic of the agenda of evening, validates the fact this illegal and violent protest was not about the event itself, but merely an opportunity for street fights and brawl with police, for which Main and his cohort are notorious.

If you, KeepDry, wish to hold the banner for violent bullies, or believe the tainted retelling of events and omission of the facts which only made this event known to the wider community, is a service to Wikipedia, you put yourself in a questionable position to lecture others on neutrality and relevance.

RaoulMachal (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• The ABC is the national broadcaster and perceived as unbiased by the majority of Australians. Assertions otherwise by the right or those with business interest in the media industry isn't grounds to suspect the accuracy of their reporting. I and the vast majority of readers of Wikipedia don't have access to the police report therefore it's not verifiable. The text should read "100-200 protesters" and reference both news articles.

• "Radical" is a subjective term and doesn't belong in an objective Wikipedia article

• Anthony Main and "two other perpetrators" make up, at most, 3% of the picket-line and can't be used to characterise the behaviour or beliefs of the whole crowd. Their presence isn't relevant to the Q-Society, this sub-section, or even a wide-angle view of the events of the protest. If you want to draw attention to Main's behaviour do it on his Wikipedia page, where it is relevant.

• If you mention the assaults on the talk attendees you must also mention the assaults on the protestors.

No one here is "holding the banner for violent bullies" etc. etc. We're looking for a quality Wiki article which objectively tells both sides, has a appropriate weight on events and has reliable, verifiable references. I don't think characterising that as a white-wash is discussing this in good faith. MaxU24 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The notion of "quality" and "Wiki article" is by design a contradiction.

Who is "we" or "the majority" perceiving the ABC as balanced? "We" as in Messrs Keep and Dry? "Majority" as in "the majority of Australian Socialist/Green members"?

This here is the reality at the ABC:

"... this tendency was most pronounced among the 34 ABC journalists who agreed to declare their voting intention, with 41 per cent of them saying they would vote for the Greens, 32 per cent declaring support for Labor and 14 per cent backing the Coalition."

Is this 73% section of green/red voters among ABC journos a reflection of the real Australian community? Would the ABC itself call in an independent auditors to investigate itself on grounds of left-wing/green bias?

Rather not, I presume. So let's remain in the realms of rationality, please. Otherwise this is a monologue.

Radical is not a subjective term, just as illegal is not a subjective term. I have explained to you above why these terms apply.

Which assaults on the 'protesters' are you referring to? The police ensuring the law of the land is upheld after the 'protesters' refused to end the violence and let others exercise their lawful right to enter the premises?

This section could have been left "as is" before you began re-editing it. So if you take up the cause to whitewash violent thugs who used this event as an opportunity to brawl and deny others the right to speak and hear freely in a private venue, you should be the last to use terms like "in good faith". What qualifies you to write about this event in Somerton on 19 Feb 2013?

RaoulMachal (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you're so dismissive of Wikipedia perhaps you should take your own advice and push your point of view through a blog.

• "Majority" would be this poll by Essential Media that indicates that 70% of Australians trust the ABC, far more than any other source [3]. Somehow, as professional journalists, they manage to keep their voting preferences out of their reporting.

• You've made an assertion about your definition of radical, that you haven't backed by any of the standard dictionaries. Who or what is radical completely depends on the point of view, I'm sure the majority of the protest participants wouldn't have viewed themselves as radical, etc. etc.

• Accusations of assault on protesters - read the quote of Yasmin Shamsil in this article [4], or the details in the top half of this article [5].

• I'll re-iterate that your perspective on the "violent thugs", who were 3% or less of the protesters, isn't relevant to the events in general and belongs on an Anthony Main page.

• "We"? Would be myself and KeepDry (who are different people in case you haven't been reading closely), probably Elmoro too given he/she originally tagged the article as non-neutral.

I'm qualified in the same way that any other editor of Wikipedia is - I take reliable sources on the subject that are in the public domain and synthesise them to describe the subject of an article or section. Why do you feel you're more qualified than any other editor on this topic?

MaxU24 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Alterenatively, RaoulMachal, would you be prepared to accept the outcome of a request for comment from outside editors or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard? MaxU24 (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So now Max went to the central committee, agitating to shut Raoul up? Max can't stand someone not agreeing with his views, can he?

Is blocking those who do not accept your pontification as gospel any different from the methods of comrade Main and cohorts, who seek to block others from exercising their basic human rights and freedoms? Brownshirt stuff, really. No wonder Max is keen to whitewash the online image of radical left-wing thugs. He stands truly exposed.

The survey referred to says nothing about ABC bias. To extrapolate from “trusted” to “bias” is mere speculation. The survey provides no demographic profiling. For all we can assert the self-appointed 1,000 something online omnibus respondents could have been ABC staff, their friends and family. Or paid-up members of your Labor Party. If 40% of ABC journos are self-confessing Greens voters, another 30% vote Labor and 18% are Liberals, how much does that leave for a conservative view to balance the proverbial left-wing bias of your ABC? Let's get real.

The terms 'radical' and 'violent' are defined in common use. They are the opposites of 'moderate' and 'peaceful'. If Max needs to consult a dictionary to establish this fact, he's a shingle short of a roof.

Fact is the 30-40 protesters in Sydney on 22 February were noisy - but peaceful. In Melbourne we saw not merely protesters, but 80-100 agitated bullies and violent left-wing extremists determined to prevent people to go about their peaceful and lawful business.

This is a factual reflection of the events, but may not be beneficial to Max' and KD's leftist agenda. Reality has never been kind to communists.

And if one of the BDS agitprops received a bloodied nose as a consequence for her non-compliance with the law, she has only herself to blame. After all she deliberately placed herself on the wrong side of the fence. She did not move away from blockading the gate when police asked the 'demonstrators' to move on. Repeatedly police gave clear warning that anyone not giving free passage to those wishing to enter the venue will be removed. They moved in after more than an hour of violent mayhem. They waited far too long to uphold the law.

What does Max say? Let's block the police?

Shall we go and revert back to a statement of facts where this article was on 4 January, time and again and again, if need be? Or will you do us the honors?

MowSparc (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In observing WP:NOTFORUM, I will comment only on this edit. I don't know why it's so difficult for people to understand that all sources have to directly support the given statements/assertions (WP:V). It's called WP:SYNTHESIS when you combine multiple sources that don't explicitly support the stated claim and use it as a reference. Maybe the person in the video IS Anthony Main - I wouldn't know because I am not aware of his appearance. But until we have a reliable source (preferably a reputable news source and not a blog from a political party) that identifies him at the protests, we cannot make these assertions. As for the Andrew Bolt article - I don't know why you decided to cite it given that it says absolutely nothing about the Q Society protests, nor does it use the phrase "Trotzkyist party enforcer". -Keepdry (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research" -Keepdry (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Geert Wilders protest

There are a number of issues with this edit. First, it implicates two individuals "Alex Sproule" and "Darren Rosso" without providing a WP:RS to support the statement. Second, it provides individual accounts of patrons of the event without providing a WP:RS to support the assertions (blogspot is not appropriate). Also the label 'serial pest' even if it is a direct quote, does not follow WP:NPOV which "Prefer nonjudgmental language".

We can attempt to reach a consensus surrounding the inclusion of Anthony Main in the article. I have no problem with including Mr Main as long as it follows the guidelines of WP:NPOV. An example of what I would consider to be appropriate may be something along the lines of "The Herald Sun reported that protester Anthony Main had an altercation with another patron of the event etc". I am open to suggestions. -Keepdry (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: It is most definitely a WP:RS issue when you choose to use a blog site to verify your claims. I've already stated my views on this matter, and I am open to discussion. Let's talk about this first. -Keepdry (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Main was no patron and he didn't have an 'altercation with another patron'. Main actually hit the man in the kidney and then wrestled him to the ground. The kidney punch wasn't caught on any camera, but the man-handling by Main and Sproule, assisted by Rosso, and then throwing him to the ground is on record. Main, Rosso, Sproule et al are clearly visible on photos and footage taken at the event. They have put their names and faces on public record, including the Facebook event page where this criminal act was planned. Why you, KeepDry, go to such length to obscure these facts shall remain your secret.

The critical point for this entry IMHO is to convey the fact that it were not angry, young Muslims running amok and injuring patrons, but serial violent attention seekers like Main, Rosso and Sproule. This event was not about a visiting member of the Dutch parliament for them, this was an opportunity for yet another brawl in front of a camera.

If you like to convey this fact to the WP reader in a format which is both truthful and passes your benevolent judgement, please do so. Otherwise I fear this will not go away. After all an encyclopedia should be about facts and the truth. Agree?

MowSparc (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest that Main was a patron - perhaps the ambiguity is with the word another. It could be changed to simply "Main had an altercation with a patron of the event" if it makes it clearer. I've already explained in detail above why I removed the content (and I even cited the relevant policy guidelines). -Keepdry (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Involved in Formation of New Party - The Australian Liberty Alliance

"Australian Liberty Alliance: Geert Wilders unveils Senate candidates amid warnings over 'blatant racism'"

"ALA party president Debbie Robinson will stand in Western Australia. Ms Robinson is also president of the secretive anti-Islam group the Q Society – which funded Mr Wilders' trip to Australia."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-21/australian-liberty-alliance-candidates-unveiled-amid-racism-fear/6874336

14.202.189.245 (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)