Talk:Geoff Shaw (politician)

Involvement in a scuffle

Material has been added about an incident involving Shaw that has been picked up by the major news outlets. A police statement called it a scuffle, but The Age is referring to it as a brawl. According to WP:WELLKNOWN, "if an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article." I don't see how this is notable - it seems to be a flash in the pan. (As opposed to, say, the Craig Thomson saga.) In any case, the reports that rely on an anonymous 3AW caller constitute gossip and should not be included. StAnselm (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your own phrasing "picked up by the major news outlets" should alert you to the fact that this material is noteworthy, controversial, and relevant to the article. Shaw has probably become one of the most controversial characters in Victorian politics in a very short space of time. The 3AW caller is not the source for this material, the major news outlets are. If they deem fit to report the 3AW caller, that is entirely their call, not ours. We are not citing the caller, we are citing The Age, the ABC, The Herald Sun etc. so they are no longer in the realm of gossip per se. 110.32.71.29 (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that it shouldn't be included, and you should not add it back in until there is a consensus to do so. And as a separate issue, the wording of the text you have added is quite bad - phrases like "became involved in an assault" seem to be your own invention. StAnselm (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it is no excuse to edit war or violate 3RR. I have no objection to you improving the text, indeed I would welcome it, but not liking the phrasing is also not an excuse for edit warring or breaching 3RR. 110.32.71.29 (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The coverage and partisan write up are imo totally undue. Perhaps with a NPOV rewrite and removal of the partisan bloat a small comment may be fit and notable for inclusion but not as it was being presented. Later, ...when I have time I will attempt a rewrite that hopefully will be acceptable to both parties. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite. I'm still not happy with it being in, but this is a better form. StAnselm (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

rewrite

In 1992 whilst working as a doorman Shaw was charged with assault, he was fined and placed on a good behavior bond and no conviction was recorded. His political opponents had suggested the charges made Shaw illegible to be elected to the Victorian Parliament as the Constitution Act declares a person is not qualified to be elected to the Victorian Parliament if they are convicted of an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more.

In August 2011 in Frankston, after Shaw intervened to assist a police officer he was allegedly punched and abused by the driver who had been pulled over for a seat belt offense. The matter is currently the subject of a police investigation.

The claim in the first paragraph is not in the cited source - namely that "His political opponents had suggested the charges made Shaw ineligible." Indeed, why would political opponents claim he is not qualified is no conviction was recorded? In fact, the source doesn't say anything about opponents, but that the party leader required an explanation. So, I think the paragraph has to go. StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I made another small write to address this issue - I have not a lot of support for the inclusion of this either but a degree of reporting was suggested - at least if its neutral its simple reporting of newsy comments - its nothing at all really in his life - its a non issue - he is allowed in the parliament and fits the constitutional requirements - so itsa just partisan attack content - I would remove it also in the near future if nothing comes of it. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It could equally be argued that your motivation for wanting to remove it is partisan. Frankly, I have no idea. But we do post a lot about the private inclinations and tendencies of some of our more well known pollies, Tony Abbott being a classic case in point. What does running marathons have to do with him as a politician, which is the reasons he is here at all? Some "personal interest" content is inevitable. And many may see a story about Shaw coming to the aid of a police officer as quite a positive thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea about this person prior to my investigation in an attempt to resolve this dispute - I haven't removed it I have rewritten it for inclusion - I am really just attempting to resolve a dispute that was at 3rrnb. Its newsy but at least its neutrally presented by an uninvolved editor. Its the type of content that imo requires revisiting after some time to see if it had legs of if it was retrospectively not noteworthy for inclusion.I agree "personal interest" stuff is inevitable but the content I rewrote had been presented and added from a partisan attacking position - no worries, I prefer to rewrite than to see decent editors restricted for removing it. Regards - Off2riorob (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it may well become very minor in time. Let's watch. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the Constitution Act is at all relevant. "No conviction recorded" seems so far short of "imprisonment for five years or more"... StAnselm (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with your removal of my reworded sentence. What had concerned me was that the Constitution Act had been neither quoted accurately nor referenced prior to my minor edit. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Anti-discrimination legislation

There is a problem with the citations that were provided for the story. First: The Age newspaper is a pro-Labor, left-wing, secular newspaper, while Geoff Shaw is a pentecostal Christian Liberal Party MP. (In Australia, the Liberal Party is the conservative party, despite the name "Liberal.") Hence, I cannot see how the Age Newspaper satisfies the NPOV requirement. Also, the Victorian HREOC is known as an organisation that has taken pentecostal pastors to court for their Christian views (e.g. the "Two Dannies" case) and its pronouncements on their own wouldn't satisfy NPOV. I have tried to improve the article in terms of NPOV by providing another source that provides the actual wording of Shaw's apology email. However, there are still major issues with this paragraph in terms of NPOV. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Third business and failing to disclose it

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/geoff-shaw-under-fire-over-another-private-business/story-e6frf7jo-1226381433495# This piece, and whether its been resolved or is under investigation, about owning another business that he had failed to disclose an interest in needs to be added. LamontCranston (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Given that Mr Shaw seems to have now been expelled or have resigned from the Liberal Party altogether, is he now an Independent per se instead of being an "Independent Liberal", or is that how he designates himself? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.146.141 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspension from Parliament

I have made significant edits to this page, most especially in regard to the debate that related to Shaw's suspension from the Legislative Assembly (LA) on 11 June 2014. An earlier edit stated that:

"....following an extended debate over how to discipline Shaw, the Victorian Parliament (which is an institution the includes both the LA and the Upper House - not too sure how you ask an institution - my comments) was asked whether to approve or disapprove expelling Shaw rather than suspending him for eleven sitting days of Parliament. Parliament (who? what?) following a division was deadlocked 42 all on the amendment. The speaker Christine Fyffe used her casting vote to suspend Shaw rather than expel him."

Well, that was not quite the case. Firstly, it was the Members of the LA that debated a motion moved by the Labor Party that Shaw be expelled from the the LA. This motion was tied 42 all, following a division of the LA, and Fyffee voted (along party lines), using her casting vote to defeat the motion. A subsequent motion was then moved by a Liberal MP to suspend Shaw for eleven days, fine him and order an apology. Without division (and from what is broadcast on radio, without dissent) this motion was passed without a division. It helps to ensure that the facts are reported accurately in such matters, and rely on reliable third party sources in all edits. Two good sources are the ABC Radio programs, AM and PM. Rangasyd (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That in fact is correct. There was a second motion which was passed with just a voice vote. In that case your right. Thanks. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geoff Shaw (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613015440/http://www.vic.liberal.org.au:80/People/StateLowerHouseCandidates/GeoffShaw/tabid/241/Default.aspx to http://www.vic.liberal.org.au/People/StateLowerHouseCandidates/GeoffShaw/tabid/241/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)