Talk:Whitehouse Institute of Design/Archive 1

Archive 1

RE: Whitehouse Institute of Design & Frances Abbott

New section biased. No proof scholarship was not awarded on merit. As a private RTO Whitehouse Institute of Design is entitled to award scholarships where it deems appropriate. If you are going to insist on this inclusion please reconsider the wording of this edit to include more detail re: government procedures including the declaration of gifts and that scholarships are NOT required to be declared and the RTO's right to award scholarships or funds as it sees fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.34.74 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The words of France's fellow students contradicts what you are saying. When they asked about scholarships they were told there were none for their program of study. That is referenced. Alans1977 (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

curious that this IP found this page in their first edit, straight after another IP ceased editing when reported for edit warring. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Very curious. Alans1977 (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The two IPs are both Optus retail Internet. Obviously the same liberal member. LibStar (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Potentially a staffer looking to make their employer look holier than the dali lama?Alans1977 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If it weren't for current events I'd say this page would qualify for deletion given how UN-notable it is. Alans1977 (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm deleting anything that isn't sourced out of mainstream media. Using crap sources such as opinion blogs for a story that is well and truly covered by the ABC, Age etc. is never a good look.If it's solid, how come the ABC isn't using it? --Pete (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. Neither of those were "crap sources". New Matilda is indisputably a reliable source, and upon further investigation I'm convinced Independent Australia is too. Calling them "opinion blogs" is total bollocks and makes your agenda ridiculously transparent. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• IndependentAustralia is rubbish. NewMatilda, we can take to WP:RSN if you want. My point is that the PM is a notable person, any valid story is going to be covered in detail by impeccable sources such as the ABC. What are these other sources adding?
• This story is undue weight for the article. Half the article is about one student? C'mon!
• How come there's no mention of this at Tony Abbott? That's an article with a lot of experienced eyes on it. This is looking like a POV fork to me. --Pete (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

* The claims about Independent Australia and New Matilda are just your usual agenda talking. If it fits right-wing talking points, you'll gladly accept primary sources; if it doesn't, you'll even argue with daily newspapers. New Matilda is a respected news and investigative journalist outfit that's been around for a decade. I can see Independent Australia as being open to discussion but calling it "rubbish" is, well, rubbish. As for the undue weight and the lack of mention at Tony Abbott, I agree with you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Pffft! More fantasy talk about an agenda and speculation as to what I might do. Keep your eye on the material, not other editors, please. Again, what are these non-mainstream sources adding that you are in such a sweat to include them? It's a three year old story, but you have a sense of urgency? --Pete (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

They're hardly "non-mainstream", and it's not "speculation" to note what you've done on several occasions in the last week. That being down with primary sources that supported your line while arguing with including daily newspapers that didn't (indeed, using the exact same bullshit "blog" claims you're trying here), that happened. Once again, if you'd like to add material to Tony Abbott and reduce the undue weight issue here, I'm all ears. On the other hand, if you'd just like to try to disappear reliable sources that don't fit with your agenda with bullshit rationales, then it's not going to fly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:Tony Abbott#Frances Abbott, Queen of the Whitehouse. Perhaps you'd like to comment there on the POV fork matter? I'm inclined to just ditch the whole story here as undue weight. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And there you go again. Half an article on the issue here is undue weight. No mention is a whitewash. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I trim it down, and you pump it up. I'm seeing a disconnect between your words and your actions here. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for summarising what's here down further so it doesn't take up half the article. I'm not for removing bits of the story under bullshit claims about the veracity of respected Australian media outlets. Indeed, the bits about Whitehouse's government lobbying is something that would belong in this article summarised or not. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Allegations from an anonymous source quoted in a blog that publishes a few articles a week. Whoop-de-do. --Pete (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Come back when you've outgrown your hair-pulling stage and have grown the maturity to actually work on an encyclopedia with the adults. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As flagged above, I've put the New Matilda quote up for discussion at Reliable sources noticeboard. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, I've passed the WP:WEIGHT problem on here --Pete (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you'd bother when there's no dispute on that issue, but more grownup attention is always useful. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Whatever edit I make, you petulantly revert it, citing an "agenda" that is apparent only to you. I'm a great believer in getting more eyes on a dispute. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out that there are two things that will result in an instant revert: deleting half the story citing bullshit claims about (reliable) sources, or deleting it altogether. Do something other than this, and you've got a consensus very easily. Strangely enough, that's all you're interested in doing (and with petulant talk page comments that amount to the Wikipedia version of hair-pulling). I don't think I've ever seen you make any edit to any article that wasn't focused around disappearing information that clashed with right-of-mainstream-conservative talking points, and that much is readily apparent to anyone who so much as glances at your edit history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What makes you so certain that you know me better than I know my self?. The picture you try to present to me is so laughably inaccurate that I cannot take you seriously. Remember how outraged you came over when I referred to you as "him"? That's the sort of disconnect I see when you tell me I have an agenda and you know what it is. You are wrong. Simple as that. You can believe whatever you want - that's fine. But you'd be better off keeping your thoughts about other editors to yourself.

Moving on. I see from this diff that we can work together. Whenever I see someone using IndependentAustralia as a source, I know that NPOV is not high on their list of preferred wikipolicies. It's like using Andrew Bolt as a source - the only reason to use such a partisan source is because more reliable sources don't exist, and polemic is the aim. Polemic - of any variety - should be gently pushed out of our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Once again, this has about as much veracity as your allegations about The Courier. I am not 100% convinced that it meets the bar because it's a newer outlet, but comparing it to Andrew Bolt is an effort in bullshit of which Bolt himself would be deeply proud. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the re-addition of the Frances Abbott stuff. I believe the section is concerned with "documenting controversy as it happens" per WP:RECENT --Surturz (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have previously stated the material is well sourced and notable. Calling New Matilda or Independent Australia blogs is just plain bollocks. As per suggestions of the material adding undue weight, if it weren't for that material I'd suggest this page would be so un-Notable as to warrant deletion. Further the material is not a fork of Tony Abbott as all the material is directly relevant to Whitehouse. Alans1977 (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted, as I do not think the WP:RECENT concerns have been addressed. No-one has gone to court, lost a job, or been successfully sued - per WP:LASTING, there should be lasting historical effects from the event to warrant inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be very strange if it were, seeing as no one that I've read is alleging criminal conduct. The affair is demonstratably the most notable thing Whitehouse is known for, and while it shouldn't take up half the article, not mentioning it at all is ridiculous. When anyone Googling Whitehouse turns up a good twenty articles from about this story from most major metropolitan newspapers in Australia in their first three or four clicks on Google, but Wikipedia doesn't mention it at all, we come away looking like someone with a conflict of interest has been doing a whitewash. I'm not at all saying that's the case, but it's absolutely going to be what it looks like to any neutral editor if the current revision stands. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's break it down:

• "The affair is demonstratably the most notable thing Whitehouse is known for", well per WP:INHERITORG, that is an argument to rename this article to cover the WP:EVENT, instead of the organisation.
• So is the event itself notable? Let's look at the criteria listed at WP:EVENT...
  • Lasting effects? Too early to tell per WP:RECENT
  • Geographical scope? A single school - nope.
  • Depth of coverage? No feature length articles in WP:RS, so no.
  • Duration of coverage? Too early to know for sure per WP:RECENT, but doesn't look like it will be in the news for more than a few weeks.
  • Diversity of sources? Newspapers only - so no.

So to summarise, the school is not notable just because the event is notable. The event is only notable if the events have lasting effects. It is too early to say whether there will be lasting effects, but it doesn't look likely to me - if Abbott resigned as PM over the issue, or even if the head of the school was sacked or gaoled or sued or something, maybe there could be a case for notability, but as it stands there is nothing that currently shows this event or organisation is notable. The bottle of Grange in NSW does a better job of meeting the WP:EVENT criteria than this school! --Surturz (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. We are not arguing whether the school is notable (the article has existed since November 2012, more than 18 months before this story broke), or whether the affair warrants its own article (I'm certainly not claiming it does) - we're arguing about whether any mention of the affair should be censored from the school's article. This means that talking about things like "geographical scope" makes no sense whatsoever. It has been covered by a diversity of sources (not just newspapers, above claim aside), and it has been covered in detail in (many, many) WP:RSs. For something that has garnered more media coverage about the school than the entire rest of the school's history, the claim that it shouldn't be discussed at all in the article is completely bizarre. Where else would you demand that someone be sacked or jailed to mention an affair covered in tens if not hundreds of WP:RSs in the article on the institution concerned? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am now also arguing that the school is not notable. One puff piece from Vogue and a bunch of links to the school's website does not establish notability for the school. Even Alan1977 agrees above that the school is only notable because of the controversy. So it is entirely valid to argue the whole lot based on how notable the event is. Please link the non-newspaper WP:RS's you mention, because I haven't found any. --Surturz (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

How exactly would you like me to link to television coverage? (and, dear god, if large-scale newspaper coverage and television coverage isn't enough in your book, what is?) If you don't think the school is notable, then why don't t you nominate it for deletion? I'd probably vote keep on the basis that it's a significant private provider, but I don't feel strongly about it. If there is an article on Whitehouse, it and Tony Abbott need to mention the affair; if we don't have an article on Whitehouse, then a sentence or two in the Abbott article is sufficient coverage in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been television coverage [1] Alans1977 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Television news coverage is not usually considered a reliable source for article content. Non-opinion-piece broadsheet newspaper articles are usually the lowest bar of reliable source; better sources are peer-reviewed academic papers in reputable journals, reference works, etc. In WT:AUSPOL articles, we've generally required multiple news articles from different broadsheet papers as references. Even then, per WP:EVENT, there really needs to be longer-term coverage of the event, and/or significant lasting effects.

This is an absurd bar and one wildly out of line with WP:RS. The only decent peer-reviewed academic papers covering Australian politics at all are the Political Chronicles series, which is six-monthly and only provides the most general overview, or sporadic and completely random coverage of other events (including plenty that, while the subject of an academic's fixation, wouldn't pass AfD). By this bar, we couldn't mention why Barry O'Farrell resigned or anything about the Victorian constitutional crisis, to name two extremely obvious current ones. Far beyond that, it would absolutely gut anything short of our articles on Prime Ministers and a few Premiers. We literally could not have articles on most federal or state ministers in Australian history (and hell, more than a few Premiers) if that standard were applied. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife - I do advocate that this article be deleted. However, I'm not nominating it for deletion until I think the AfD would be successful. --Surturz (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So much for the courage of your convictions :) Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

eh? My convictions don't override consensus. Anyway, article is locked, so nominating it for deletion would be difficult. --Surturz (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not fussed on whether it's deleted or not, but as I've said before: if it stays, not mentioning the affair around their political lobbying that consists of the majority of the media coverage they've ever gotten is absurd and looks to any neutral reader like a deliberate whitewash. My interest is not trying to increase coverage of this on Wikipedia; my interest is in seeing that some mention of it goes in a couple of places where we look bloody silly if it's erased (and if those places get erased altogether then I could care less). The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should stick to the facts. Speculation and synthesis have no part here, especially when dealing with BLP material which this is. I've tightened up the text a bit, removing some of the innuendo. We don't have a good source for the exact figures, but the mainstream media figure of around $60 000 looks to be good enough. The key point here is that it was a rarely-awarded scholarship, so the grumbling from other students that they weren't selected is sour grapes. Of course it wasn't advertised as generally available; there's only been two awards in the history of the institute. The award came from the founder, and the only link we have with the Liberal party donor chairman mate of TA is that he thinks he might have said she would be a good recipient or something. Is that really enough to be declaring there was lobbying and skullduggery? It all gets very tenuous when measured against the few actual facts we have. --Pete (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I can live with the edits removing the figures, but the fact that a scholarship was awarded, at the discretion of the founder, that was not available to other students, is fundamental to any explanation of why this was controversial - and removing that starts to make it an extremely selective editing of what the sources said on the matter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry? What makes you think that it wasn't available to other students? The fact that it was awarded to one student doesn't mean it could only have been awarded to that one student. After all, we are told that it has been awarded twice, so logically someone other than FA must have received the other scholarship. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

But having said that, I think your addition is fine. --Pete (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It is covered in one of the sources. That students undertaking the same course of study asked if there were any scholarships that they could apply for and were specifically told that there were no scholarships available for their course of study. Without that I'd say the events would perhaps turn out to be quite a bit less notable. Alans1977 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

They aren't notable at all. This is one student winning a rarely-offered scholarship to an unremarkable design school on academic merit. So far as we know. That's not notable, even if it is Tony Abbott's daughter. Trying to insinuate that there was something underhanded going on when we have no evidence to back it up, is a violation of our BLP policy. Sure, the scholarship wasn't offered to the general student body. That's because it wasn't something that could be applied for. It was the personal choice of the founder. Now, if you want to push this, Alans1977, I'll push it up to the BLP noticeboard and see what some of the editors there with harder heads than you or I have to say about it. I can tell you right now that all your handwaving and bluster will have no effect, nor will the opinions and speculations and insinuations of op-ed writers. --Pete (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Do what ever you like Pete. I don't believe you are seriously interested in gaining consensus anyway.

1) On the topic of evidence there is evidence. Fellow students of Frances reporting to mainstream media that they asked if there were any scholarships that they could apply for and that they were specifically told there were not scholarships available for their program of study. Have you even bothered to read the source material? Here I'll help you. “I’ve never been made aware of any scholarship,” the student said, “I live eight hours away from Sydney. I picked up my entire life and moved to the other side of the state to be a part of this institute. I’ve asked about scholarships to make it easier on myself and my family financially but every time I’ve been told there are none available.” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/former-classmates-angry-scholarship-abbotts-daughter 2)You state that Frances won the scholarship. She did not win the scholarship. In order for her to have won the scholarship, she would of needed to have competed against others. I am not suggesting she isn't a smart girl. Hell knows she might of won it anyway if it came down to it, but the fact of the matter is that other people weren't even allowed to apply for it because they were specifically told there was no scholarship available to apply for in their course of study. Backed up by source, which you evidently can't be arsed reading, because your ideal situation would be complete removal of the material and it's fairly obvious that you are attempting to attain that by hollowing out the material as much as possible to make in a little at a time less notable until such you'll argue the whole lot is completely un-notable. 3) I do not need to insinuate anything at all. The source material completely backs me up. I don't even think it is underhanded. Whitehouse is a private institution entitled to deliver scholarships to ever the hell they like without opening them up to others to apply for if they so wish. In fact it's quite clear they head hunted Frances because they heard she was planning on attending another design school. I imagine they viewed having her as a student as a good marketing move and bringing prestige to their school (Not that I would even think of adding that into the article as it is pure conjecture on my behalf). So once again Pete, please explain why me more accurately conveying information from source material is objectionable? Or are you as I believe only interested in, little by little, making the whole material un-notable until such time that you can reasonably argue for the removal of the whole lot on the basis that it is un-notable?Alans1977 (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, simple as that. I understand your line of argument, but I have addressed it and I'm not going to keep on arguing in circles for your entertainment. DW and I have come to some mutually agreeable wording and I'll keep it at that. --Pete (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am thoroughly confused about what's even being argued here at this point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussed at length

This has been discussed at length and there is consensus for the inclusion of the material. Reverted. Alans1977 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No there isn't. It's been deleted twice by two different editors. Out of the four discussing the topic. That's hardly consensus, is it? --Pete (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been added in by 3 different editors. Alans1977 (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

May I ask you what definition of "consensus" you are using? Does it correspond with that given in WP:CONSENSUS? Consensus is not a vote, for example. --Pete (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Per [2], if there is any edit-warring going on, it's by you, Alans1977. You've already been blocked once for editing this article, and are also responsible for the article being locked for 10 days. --Surturz (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is generally accepted in decision making that where consensus is not possible due to fundamental disagreement that voting is the tie breaker. As per edit-warring, looking at the edit history of this page clearly shows you Surturz engaging in it. Alans1977 (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we go by the procedures outlined in WP:CONSENSUS instead of your own definition. Feel free to report other editors for edit-warring, but judging by your recent history you should read up on the wikiprocess on that as well. Let's go with established procedure, and on that note, I propose discussion rather than adding contentious material without consensus. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose discussion rather than deleting well sourced notable material without consensus. Alans1977 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally I reject outright that the material is contentious. Alans1977 (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been the subject of prolonged discussion and edit-warring, as a glance at the edit history reveals. The page was locked and you were blocked for edit warring. Just what does your definition of "contentious" require? Nuclear weapons, perhaps? You have been asked multiple times now to gain consensus before inserting this contentious BLP material. Please observe this basic requirement. --Pete (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're arguing over the inclusion of FA's scholarship. Certainly it should be included, but just as certainly it should also put forth both sides of the story. I really don't know how one can be against that, but for the inclusion of Rudd's earwax which has no bearing on anyone. Seriously... *rolls eyes* Timeshift (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that one side of the story is just supposition and innuendo. It's actually the side I think most plausible, than that FA won her rare scholarship on academic merit, but that's just my opinion, and if we dig, there's really no solid facts we can use to support it. Take away the synthesis and crap, and it's just someone winning a scholarship. Not notable. Even the fact that she's now the PM's daughter doesn't make that event notable. To be notable, there needs to be a solid connection with TA, and there just isn't anything concrete we can base it on. Grumblings of other students? Anonymous opinions? This is BLP we're talking about here. We need something good from a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So on the other side of the story, state with references that it has been rejected as supposition and innuendo as but one aspect of the counter-balance. I don't see the issue here. Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem lies in reporting synthesis, supposition and opinions as fact. That's the Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources:BLP problem right there. We don't counter falsehoods by pointing them out, we remove them entirely. --Pete (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Except none of this last little argument has anything to do with the reliable sources that actually exist about this affair. One of these things is Skyring's opinion. The other side is what every mainstream media outlet in the country reported. So we say what the reliable sources did. If you believe what every mainstream media outlet in the country reported is a falsehood, then you need sources for that; you don't get to just remove it because you personally disagree. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. Always happy to discuss specific points with as many editors as possible. For example. The statement that TA did not declare the scholarship as a gift. Some sources mentioned this, but they also noted that he didn't have to. When we say that he didn't report it and leave it at that, the implication is that he should have reported it, which is factually incorrect. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is fair enough also. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ragtrader

I've come accross an article in which the institute defends the awarding of the scholarship. However I've never heard of the news outfit before. They seem to be an fashion industry news outfit. http://www.ragtrader.com.au/news/whitehouse-speaks-out Can anyone comment on whether they are respectable, been around for a while or worthy for inclusion?Alans1977 (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a reliable source, but I'm not sure they say anything sufficiently interesting to warrant the additional weight in this article. I'm not too bothered either way though. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship not available to other students

Um so what was wrong with that minor edit I made to clearly convey what is covered in the source. Your edits display you being oppositional for the sake of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whitehouse_Institute_of_Design&diff=613141400&oldid=613139605 Alans1977 (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just as confused as you are about that one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course the scholarship was available to other students. It was in the gift of Leanne Whitehouse, and any student who caught her eye could have had it. It was not offered to them in that it was not something that could be applied for ahead of time. There is a distinction. As a rough comparison, one does not apply for a military decoration such as the Victoria Cross. Often one is unable to do so. It is something that is available to all, but it is not offered. Others must set the process in motion, one cannot self-nominate. --Pete (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the a Victoria Cross to a scholarship makes absolutely no sense. The facts are, as is clearly conveyed by the source material, that Frances's co-students asked if there were scholarships available and were told that there were none for their specific program of study. No insinuations needed. Alans1977 (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an insinuation in itself. Asking readers to connect the dots isn't what we do. Find a reliable source that makes an explicit statement. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No asking of readers to 'connect the dots' is needed. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/former-classmates-angry-scholarship-abbotts-daughter which is a reliable source already used by this article makes it explicit. From the article: "I’ve asked about scholarships to make it easier on myself and my family financially but every time I’ve been told there are none available". Doesn't get any more explicit than that.Alans1977 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No dispute there, but it's still synthesis to imply there is a connection to FA, and to ask readers to make that connection. Kindly desist from attempting to imply there is more going on than we have facts for. --Pete (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything at all. The facts are abundantly clear and sourced. Unless of course you wish to name the people quoted as being liars. If so, please provide your sources. Alans1977 (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Synthesis

May I ask editors to read through WP:SYNTH and appreciate the material there:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. 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 imply a new conclusion, which is original research.

The conclusion C which is obviously attempted to be drawn here is that FA received a scholarship which was denied to her fellow students because she was the daughter of the then opposition leader and she received this through some lobbying or other connection. We do not have a single source which states this explicitly, and we cannot therefore present a line of sourced facts that lead a reader to draw this conclusion. We cannot use original research in a WP:BLP.

This is basic wikipolicy and it's not going to be gotten around. Find a reliable source which states something explicitly. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. Alans1977 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The article says no such thing. The article summarises the sources. Suggesting that one source must mention every aspect, when all cover more or less the same ground with a few different details, is an extremely creative attempt at interpreting WP:RS. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

If you would care to outline the scenario you think I'm pushing? --Pete (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It would violate synthesis if one source mentioned the award of the scholarship and another mentioned the lobbying. You are correct that would be implied synthesis since the implication would be that the two might be connected. However, the media has put the two together. To provide one example, the Sunshine Coast Daily has an article called "Frances Abbott used by school to lobby government: report." TFD (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. We're back at reliable sources for that one, because no mainstream outlet said the same thing, and we have to ask why not? We can take that to RSN and ask why when the most reliable sources in Australia carried the same story, they didn't report the lobbying accusation made by New Matilda and picked up by SCD. The answer is that the accusation was regarded as gammon. They all carried the same story, after all. --Pete (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to go there. An argument was made at RSN for leaving the lobbying material out that didn't rest upon bullshit claims about media outlets that ran with it, and I can run with that. This said, the argument is silly. This article summarises the sources. Everything that I can see that we mention is mentioned in at least The Guardian article (citation seven) if not the others (which I haven't checked since I'm in a hurry), and we're not summarising that or any other article selectively. For WP:SYNTH to be a problem, somebody on Wikipedia would have to be doing some synthesising of sources, and it hasn't happened here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Skyring,please explain why you do not consider the Sunshine Coast Daily to be mainstream media. Here anyway is a link to an article in The Guardian The Guardian is a prestigious U.K. broadsheet. It mentions both the scholarship and the lobbying.

BTW there is a fascinating book about the NSW Liberal Party called The Liberals: The NSW Division 1945-2000.[3]

TFD (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Over the years, we've found that the sources least likely to be challenged on Australian political topics are the major metropolitan dailies and the national broadcasters ABC or SBS. Obviously there are some opinion segments that are partisan, but the straight news feeds of these sources are pretty solid. Not sure what niche the Sunshine Coast Daily fits into, but it's definitely not a major metropolitan paper, nor is it noted for exclusives on federal political stories. The mere fact that it includes the lobbying allegation when more reliable sources don't is a red flag.

The Guardian article you mention is a complete rejection of any lobbying allegation. The New Matilda material is mentioned very tangentially. It also notes that the awarding of the scholarship is a one-way process. It is not something that students may apply for. Like the award of an honour or decoration; you can't apply for a George Cross or a knighthood, but you can certainly accept one.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that there is more to the story, but we can only go by the facts, and when both lobbying and special treatment are explicitly rejected by all possible sources, all we have left to support such notions are speculations and insinuations. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The lobbying allegations aren't in the current draft of this article, and our article accurately describes what the source actually says - your reading of it, with things like the honours comparison - now that would raise issues with WP:SYNTH. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry? There's no mention of honours. It's my example of things that are available but not offered, for discussion here. Looking further at the source, there's about twenty scholarships awarded each year, according to the institute. --Pete (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a distinction that nobody's applying to this situation in the manner in which you're applying it, which raises obvious problems with a number of policies that you're very fond of citing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of scholarships

Ian Tudor, chief executive of the institute, has not responded to detailed questions from Guardian Australia relating to the processes by which the scholarship was awarded. He told news.com that the scholarship was “a discretionary award made and funded by Leanne Whitehouse”.

He said the award was “originally called the MD’s scholarship and subsequently the chair’s scholarship”.

Tudor said the institute has given “various types of scholarships” during his 10-year career there and told news.com that it awarded “20 or more each year”.

The institute’s website states that the bachelor of design degree, which Abbott completed, “does not currently offer scholarships to gain a place into the Bachelor of Design” but that scholarships for “further study may be offered during the academic year”.[4]

So how is Ian Tudor, chief executive of the institute has stated that it awarded "twenty or more each year." any sort of misrepresentation? --Pete (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The out-of-context quote carries a strong implication, not contained in the original article, that those 20 were for the students previously referred to, and for the same things. I have no particular problem with this section being summarised, but the last paragraph you quoted is crucial in that case. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. So it's not a misrepresentation of Tudor's words. Yet we seem to be making a lot of the fact that there are no scholarships advertised for that particular course and if students (how many?) ask, they are truthfully told this. Perhaps we should emphasis the specific nature of the scholarship awarded to FA a little more? --Pete (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If students apply for a course and ask if they're any scholarships they can apply for, they're being told no because there aren't any of that nature - which the institute's website also says. That there are scholarships for further study being offered during the academic year is not the same thing. All we need to do is quote the article, including the above paragraphs, in context. The suggested alternative is WP:SYNTH in action. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with DW. Mention of other scholarships available for other programs of studies within the institute is irrelevant and an obvious attempt by you Pete to muddy the waters. The source is quite clear. Abbott's classmates asked if there were any scholarships that they could apply for and were specifically told that there were none available for their programs of study.

The point is that Frances Abbott could have asked the same question and received the same answer. The scholarship she was awarded was not one that she could have applied for. You do appreciate this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You're placing great weight on a distinction not made in any reliable source's coverage of the issue. Again, keep in mind most of your favourite policies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm interested to see if you understand the point. --Pete (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm still unclear whether you appreciate this, DW. It's an important point. There are, according to our sources, two different types of scholarships awarded by Whitehouse:

1. The "20 or more each year" mentioned by Tudor, as per the Guardian article quoted above.
2. The "Chairman's Scholarship", actually awarded by Leanne Waterhouse, of which Frances Abbott was only the second recipient.

The first can't be applied for by BoD students, apparently, because they are for "further study". Some clarification of their exact nature would be handy here, but we have students saying that they were told there were no scholarships available for their course of study, and this seems to be a point worth edit-warring over to keep it in the article.

The second type can't be applied for either, because it is the rare gift of LW. So if FA had asked if there were any scholarships available, she would have likewise been told no.

Now, DW, you don't want any mention of the twenty scholarships because they are "not the same thing". So "the same thing" must be the other scholarship, the chairman's scholarship, awarded to FA. But this is not a scholarship for which students may apply. So what is the encyclopaedic point of mentioning that students can't apply for it, and linking to an article titled Frances Abbott's classmates angry that they could not apply for scholarship? --Pete (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say you should find the sources that support the significance of this argument. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's two evasions now. Way to confirm me in my view. I say that it is misleading our readers to insinuate that the scholarship was of a kind that students could apply for. Do we have a source saying that FA applied for this scholarship? We do not. --Pete (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your attempt to warp what is contained in source material. It just isn't going to fly. Alans1977 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No reliable source (or, hell, even an unreliable source that I've seen) supports the distinction you're making having any significance. Therefore, per all of your favourite policies, we cannot mention it in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Alans1977 (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I won't labor the point, DW, but it's always interesting to find the point where someone decides not to follow the thread of an argument. You, DW, like myself, have had great experience of disputations, and you must have observed, I think, that they do not always terminate in mutual edification, or in the definition by either party of the subjects which they are discussing; but disagreements are apt to arise - somebody says that another has not spoken truly or clearly; and then they get into a passion and begin to quarrel, both parties conceiving that their opponents are arguing from personal feeling only and jealousy of themselves, not from any interest in the question at issue. And sometimes they will go on abusing one another until the company at last are quite vexed at themselves for ever listening to such fellows.[5]

These sorts of discussions are quite easy to identify here; they go round in circles. Let us not go round in circles. --Pete (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Should Abbott's daughter stuff be included?

I think not. Private individuals giving money in the form of scholarships to other private individuals is not a scandal by any definition, despite what some sources would have you believe. Bears little relevance to the institution's notability. Okay, now you go: 124.169.104.184 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The material is well referenced and notable. Alans1977 (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying it's made up, but why is it notable? Why should it be included in the article? Please explain 124.169.104.184 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you targeting pages that have material to do with the LNP are removing material that might cast an unfavorable light? I perceive a conflict of interest. Alans1977 (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are you targeting pages that have material to do with the LNP and adding material that might cast an unfavorable light? I also perceive a conflict of interest. Why don't you back off the ad hominem and actually address my concerns. 124.169.104.184 (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

How is the material that was originally added by someone else and edited by me to include more references not notable? Alans1977 (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I must add that the material is particularly notable given that some of other student's that Frances studied with asked about scholarships and were told that there were none for their program. Again that is referenced. Alans1977 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Other editors should note than Alans1977 has tweeted several a multitude of posts with the hashtags #LNPScum, #LNPLIars, and #FuckAbbott, and retweeted links to several articles critical of Frances Abbott's scholarship, including one that said "This is about so much more than Frances Abbott and her $60,000." He also identifies as a supporter of the Australian Labor Party on his userpage. He recently outed himself on another user's talkpage, but I am hesitant to post links to that talk page or his twitter account, because that may be crossing some sort of line, even though, as above, he has outed himself. I reckon that's a COI if there ever was one, and his edits on this page can hardly be considered neutral. (Please oversight my edits if you feel this has crossed a line, but I feel it's quite relevant to Alans1977 editing habits, not only on this page.) 124.169.104.184 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

almost all your recent edits are removing negative material of people connected to the liberals. WP:KETTLE if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was someone using twitter with username Alans1977. Alans1977 (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

there is someone called that but has made zero tweets https://mobile.twitter.com/Alans1977 . Now is user 124.169.104.184 making this up? LibStar (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't really feel comfortable giving out his twitter account yet (if ever), but I'm not pulling this out of my arse. His handle doesn't have anything to do with his WP account, but it's definitely the same guy. Like I said, he already outed himself when he was trying to get you to Skype him and he's pretty upfront on his userpage, so he's not exactly a very private individual. 124.169.104.184 (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that because I am a member of a political party that I have an inability to take a neutral stance and act accordingly when editing? If anything I question your motives more because you are not upfront about who you are and hide behind an IP address. Alans1977 (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

And your editing history clearly indicates a connection with the liberal party, 2 + 2 = 4. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC) "Julie Bishop is vile scum." … another choice tidbit from Alan's twitter page, posted shortly after this little discussion. Yes, Alan, I am suggesting you have an inability to take a neutral stance and act accordingly when editing. 124.169.104.184 (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd wish to substantiate you allegations and stop hiding behind an IP address. Alans1977 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for evidence from the anonymous tory troll. 203.158.37.60 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)