Talk:Michael Atkinson (politician)

}}

As to the part I have altered

I have altered the following sentence:

"He is a strong supporter of internet-censorship,[1] and is responsible for maintaining Australia's status as the only Western country without an "Adults Only" rating for video games, with the consequence that games with content unsuitable for children are also banned for use by adults,[2] despite overwhelming demand for such a rating."

Specifically, I changed "Australia's status as the only Western country without an "Adults Only" rating for video games" to "Australia's status as one of the few Western countries wihtout an "Adults Only" rating for video games". The reference that was provided (a newspaper article), does not state anywhere that Australia is the only Western country without an adult rating for video games. Also, the term 'Western country' is not even used, and is a questionable term: how is a Western country specifically defined? Of course, Australia would nonetheless fall under this category, but still. Anyway, so I altered the sentence slightly to at least maintain some degree of accuracy, but it is still not perfect. If someone can find a reference stating that Australia is the only Western country without an adults only rating for video games, then certainly go ahead and change it back. Cheers! 121.213.253.68 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the sentence "It therefore lacks not only an equivalent rating to the ESRB's "AO" (Adults Only) but also an equivalent to the ESRB's "Mature" (17+) rating[7]", as there is a mature restricted rating, just it is 15 not 17. The main issue is the inconsistency with the classification of films within Australia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.16.61 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, Australia is better termed a Developed country then a Western country since it is not in the West.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not geographically, but Australia is a western country by some modern definitions of that term. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but my point still stands. Australia is better described as a Developed country South of Asia then as a "Western Country" when talking about economics or geography. Western in the context its used here may not be appropriate. Its a term that is seeing less and less use in reference to Australia, just like the term 'first world'.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography link is broken

• since the article appears to be read-only, I post it here: the first link (supposedly leading to his officl bio) is dead - the correct one is http://www.sa.alp.org.au/people/sa/atkinson_michael.php - please fix, if anyone can. 203.153.204.184 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding in Zero Punctuation episode

Just to get a discussion going, Michael Atkinson has been recently villified again here. Sadly, certain users believe anyone who criticizes Atkinson's stance against gaming accept from the most meek, sterile terms goes against WP:BIO, so I've decided to start a discussion on the matter. While I admit, "Yahtzee" may not be the most politically correct person, but written properly, ZP can and should be used as a source. ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. See ongoing discussion. What ZP thinks of Atkinson with some award is not noteable to Atkinson's WP:BLP, and this contributor is the only one to support it's addition to the article. An admin has agreed that it should not be in the article as evidenced in the history log. I don't know why this contributor is supporting it in the first place when it clearly does not have a place in the article, and has no WP:CONSENSUS. Until such time as the contributor has consensus, he has no leg to stand on in re-instating the edit. Timeshift (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he chose to publically whine and run to a tame admin, not to mention his choice of title of that particular subsection in his aformentioned discussion shows that this decidedly needs to be discussed in the effort to gain consensus. If you have an issue with it and choose to get an admin to support you, that's fine. However, I still exercise my right to discuss the fact that ZP is valid and, who knows, enough people will give me consensus.ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

So we agree on the principle of WP:CONSENSUS now... thankyou! Timeshift (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That cheap remark you just made was cheap and in bad faith. On to more important matters... ZP is decidedly relevant because it adds the fact that people oppose his policies, including that on gaming. The few additions that are there are decidedly to mild and seem like ass-kissing more than anything else ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to notability - we're trying to write an article about a person, not about a cultural phenomenon. What some game maker thinks of him is rather irrelevant. I'll explain by way of a second, much more notable pronouncement. In 2007, our then Prime Minister, effectively the head of state of a major US ally, made a claim that if Obama was elected it would be a victory for the terrorists. Had Howard been re-elected in 2007 (he in fact lost both government and his own seat), he would have had to work alongside Obama, so the fallout from this pronouncement could have gotten very interesting. However, from Wikipedia's perspective, it gets a single line in John Howard, and no mention at all in Barack Obama. I think this in general would be how such things would normally be handled.

I also don't know what you're trying to imply in calling me a "tame admin"... I'm sure this conversation can be concluded without people resorting to lame personal attacks on third parties. Would love to know what basis you build such a conclusion on, too, given it's very unlikely to be my contribs. Orderinchaos 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift and Orderinchaos. I saw that sentence about ZP "awarding" Atkinson some silly made-up title in the article yesterday and it seemed really irrelevant, out of place, and had undue weight – I was going to remove it myself. The subsequent revisions, although marginally more neutral, were equally awkward, and seem to be relying on a publication of questionable notability reporting a trivial off the cuff remark by another barely notable publication. --Canley (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I smile in Shawn's general direction :) Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Even I don't think it belongs, and I'm a member of ZP. HalfShadow 04:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As much as I love Yahtzee, if we include every critisism of Atkinson ever made, this article will be the longest on Wikipedia. Keep it out.121.208.146.223 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Game ratings

This article is coat-racked to death. Almost half of it (and almost all of the reference section) is about the very marginal issue of game ratings, adding more isn't a good idea, taking out all that other superfluous stuff is an even better idea. Sambauers (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I found discrepancies between what was said in the article, and what was in the provided citations. I have fixed some of it - which involved cutting a fair bit of that section. regards --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we find a reference besides gamepolitics.com? Hardly an unbiased detached-from-the-issue source, hardly WP:RS... Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding him to Category:Video game censorship

Atkinson is somebody who for the censorship and banning of video games, by blocking something as simple as a MA18+ rating for no understandable reason. --Greatrobo76 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this means he should be added to an unrelated catagory but I will wait for any objections by other users before I proceed to remove it. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He is instrumental in depriving millions of adult Australians access to content available in all other OECD jurisdictions in the world, and he does so single handedly due to distinctly undemocratic elements of Australia's political system. I believe he should be, and strongly so. DavidHuo (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. That's not what categories are for. They should be for clear cut, non-debateable characteristics - age, political party, affiliations, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Aww, so I can't add politicians to Category:People I don't like? Damn. (And the "instrumental" and "single-handedly" in an earlier is a bit excessive... he's a minister in caucus in the majority party of the Assembly. Not defending the bloke, but this is meant to be a biography.) Orderinchaos 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Can't we get this page semi'ed? The vandalism over the last few weeks is significant. --Merbabu (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

bout time 220.235.82.73 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote from Advertiser editorial

Hi. I added a new paragraph about a recent internet-censorship controversy that's been going on. I included a quote from an advertiser editorial, realising that it isn't neutral, but thought that it captured the tone and severity of the article. Not sure if this is proper form -I'm not a regular contributor- but just letting you know in case anyone has a problem with it. I think the paragraph as a whole is necessary in so much as it sheds some more information on Atkinson's political life. The article as a whole is fairly short, and although it would be easy to fill it with a lot of gamer-related debate and R18+ material it's important to also examine some of the other facets of his political life, i.e. involvement in St. Clair redevelopment or being was sued for public defamation. It might come off as biased, but the point is that it actually happened and it deserves to feature in the article. PieMachine (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP articles are not about WP:COATRACKs. And we require WP:NPOV contributions. Your contribution as it stood is not suitable and has therefore been removed. Timeshift (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Atkinson's recent internet censorship law

Can someone add a section about Michael Atkinson's recent law that effects internet comments? [1][2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.187.169 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

But he will be repealing them before the election campaign starts, which is when the law would have taken effect? Don't get me wrong, look at my userpage, I'm extremely unhappy with what was proposed, but unlike some other politicians, it didn't take long for him to listen and act upon the backlash. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the whole incident is notable enough to warrant inclusion though, even if he does backtrack? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It deserves a mention but it doesn't deserve to dominate the article as it previously did, and some on this talk page and in edit history are suggesting. It also needs to stick to the point and not misrepresent the references as it did before I cleaned it up a week or so ago. --Merbabu (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of a 'Controversy' section

I'm just wondering whether it's worth introducing such a section, considering the wide range of criticism and controversy surrounding him. Having another section instead of including this kind of stuff under 'Parliamentary Career' would probably better define him as a politician while still allowing for the inclusion of things like the Stashed-Cash affair, which so far has no mention in the article. Examples include the 'Controversy, criticism and parody' section on the Bill O'Reilly page and the 'Controversial Incidents' section in the Rush Limbaugh article. A similar system could work here. PieMachine (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There should be no "controversy/criticism" section in any NPOV article - don't let the apparently numerous precendents encourage new ones - they are on the way out. the issues can be adequately and "NPOV-ly" described within the normal headings. Please refer to this label:

regards --Merbabu (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. PieMachine (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Help from the Editors

Is it possible that instead of flat-out deleting additions that, although relevant, are not necessarily WP:NPOV, the senior contributors here could instead help edit these sections so they meet Wikipedia's standards? Obviously there's a lot of vandalism on this page, and that has to go. But I think that a lot of the new content that gets added is meant with good intentions, even if it isn't in the proper style, and it tends to be simply shouted down rather than refined. I'm aware that my previous contribution to the article (a section about recent internet censorship laws) was viewed as a WP:COATRACK (I honestly didn't know - I'm fairly new as a contributor), but the reaction was rather indicative of my point - yes, in it's present state it was unacceptable, but as suggested by Merbabu and Lear's Fool above, the incident did deserve inclusion, and the contribution could have been edited and refined by the more experienced contributors rather than removed entirely, even if it occurs off the main article to maintain neutrality and proper style until it meets the proper standard. I base this suggestion off my experience editing this article, but I'm sure there are others who have had a similar problem. PieMachine (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really understood what WP:COATRACK was, you'd understand why it is flat out removed. This page is about Michael Atkinson, it is not a WP:LAUNDRY list of various government policies and legislation. The place for that would be a Rann government style article similar to Rudd government. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PieMachine, thanks for expressing your concerns so carefully. Putting aside the issue of whether politicians' controversial stances and laws belong in their bio articles, I am compelled to commend you for your tone of civility, and to express my opinion that Timeshift9's apparent attitude of impatience toward you seems largely unmerited.

Timeshift9, I understand and sympathize with your frustration -- god knows it gets tiresome battling the tide of vandalism and malicious intent -- but this was not one of those situations. Your contemptuous edit summary of Feb 3 assumed bad faith and ended up insulting an editor who has been honestly trying to figure out an imperfect system of standards and guidelines. Your post above also reads as condescending, which again seems sort of undeserved. I feel that Wikipedia depends on editors being willing to listen and explain themselves reasonably and politely, which PieMachine has done admirably so far. So for Pete's sake, let's not scare off new editors who have the rare patience and care on which this collaborative project depends! AtticusX (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than concentrating on the navel gazing of editor attitudes, how about we stick to the topic at hand? It would seem much more productive. Timeshift (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the article has been put under further protection why don't we use the oppurtunity get started on working on the notable issues that deserve to be in there and currently aren't? I'm going to suggest the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke affair as well as the defamation suit from Andrew Cannon against Atkinson in which the government paid out $200,000. I don't have the time right now to get started on finding sources, but I will soon. If any of the other contributors can help, that would be fantastic. Hopefully we can pull together and reach a consensus to produce something that meets Wikipedia's standards. PieMachine (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Some Sources

The Internet Commenting Controversy:

• Adelaide Now / The Advertiser breaking the story: [4]
• ABC News with the initial story: [5]
• ABC News with the backdown: [6]

 -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Cannon Defamation Suit

• The Australian (via Adelaide Now) with original story: [7]
• The Australian with the result and settlement: [8]

 -- PieMachine (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

R18+ Rating Response/Other Related

• Atkinson receiving death threats [9][10]

 -- PieMachine (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot help but feel this is just a way for you to add a bunch of News Ltd propaganda to MA's talk page... but in the interests of WP:AGF I theoretically retract it. Timeshift (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't. The only reason the majority of sources are News Ltd is that all of the major newspapers in SA are owned by Murdoch (believe me, I'm not proud of it) and Atkinson doesn't get as much coverage outside the state. If you can offer anything from Fairfax or otherwise you're welcome. We'll work with what we've got, but so far all I can find (or what I can find with the most information) is from the Murdoch papers. PieMachine (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly is the point of listing a bunch of anti-Atkinson articles on his wikipedia talkpage? I already feel that this in itself is highly borderline against wikipedia policies. References are there to be used in articles, not to be WP:LAUNDRY listed on talk pages. And no this isn't any sort of green light to start WP:COATRACKing the article either. Timeshift (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you have to constantly assume bad faith. We are posting sources on the talk page while the main article is locked so that as a community we can produce something of a sufficient quality to be included in the article, using these sources. I assume that we are allowed to produce a draft, as a group, within the talk page itself, although maybe I am wrong. Once again, I'm new to this. But whether the articles are positive or negative is irrelevant; the information (except for the Internet Commenting Controversy, because it was a government policy) is directly related to Atkinson's own actions with little outside influence. You can accuse ANY media outlet of having a bias, but we're doing our best to work with what is avaialable. If you think there is malicious intent in the sources we propose to use, then supply your own alternative sources for the community to consider instead of just shooting down any attempt to add relevant and notable information to the article. Or, help us write the material yourself, if you want to be sure that we aren't doing anything wrong. PieMachine (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So then why not create User:PieMachine/Michael Atkinson and work at it to your heart's content there, references and all, and if it fits within wikipedia guidelines and policies and has the standard WP:CONSENSUS, it will be added? Too many times on wikipedia have people just used talk pages for negative reference dumping grounds. I'm jaded. If this isn't you, then you will have no issue following my suggestion, which is actually what everyone would agree with. Create your draft. But dumping refs here is not the way to do it and only breeds contempt. Sorry but that's the way it is. Prove me wrong. Timeshift (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I felt that considering the heated opinions on all sides of the article's subject, working on additions within the talk-page and allowing for revisions and edits by the community from the beginning would help build consensus and reduce percieved bais from any party. I am merely working on what I can gather from WP:TPG in relation to 'Making Proposals' and 'Discussion of Edits'; especially considering the article itself is currently protected it would make sense to draft and discuss as a community within the talk-page in order to produce material which yields the best consensus. If you would prefer for contributors to work on their own pages, very well, but when we have produced material is it possible that upon proposing it in the talk page you could help refine and improve it rather then dismissing it straight away if it doesn't immediately meet the criteria? PieMachine (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It was an example - Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft might be a better literal example for you. I'm no longer going to hit my head against a brick wall. Perhaps someone else's head has some life left in it. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Drafting additions

Additions to this article are currently being drafted at Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft. Please feel free to join in! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has been unblocked. Please review the suggested additions at Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft (or make your own). They will be merged into the article soon according to reaction and consensus. PieMachine (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Have requested unprotection

Please note I have requested the "full protection" status of this page be reviewed. The article history does not appear to support a need for full protect status. NPOV issues should be resolved through collaborative editing rather than deletes and blocks; see WP:FLAG. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

R18+ Games Rating Information

Atkinson became rather infamous as a blocker to the idea of introducing and R18+ rating for computer games in Australia. I just removed a chunk of information about that debate, which did not relate directly to Atkinson: Donama (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC) See also WP:COATRACK which has already been mentioned on this talkpage. It better articulates why I removed this paragraph. Donama (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Gamers 4 Croydon candidate Chris Prior found in a survey looking back (from 2010) at the past three years of game releases and found that 85% of MA15+ rated games were rated M (for 17 and older) by the USA’s ESRB. 50% were rated 18+ by the Europe’s PEGI, suggesting the current arrangements actually make it easier, and legal, for underage consumers to access material restricted to adults in other developed countries. Only about 2-3 games submitted per year for rating in Australia are banned out of dozens of international R rated titles, the rest being reduced to an M15 rating.In an interview broadcast on australian ABC TV's Good Game show in late 2009, Atkinson referred to such comments as an "argument of convenience" for those with a vested interest in pushing games with extreme violence and, he repeatedly stated, "depraved sex" on Australian youth and the public. When pressed in interviews to give examples of "depraved sex" content, Atkinson invariable describes the content of Japanese Hentai games, despite the fact that neither Europe or America's ratings systems (with which the r18+ category would bring Australia into line with) allow for the sale of such material to consumers of any age, and no games in the Hentai category seem to appear on the unofficial List of banned video games in Australia, implying self-censorship by the Japanese producers of these titles, i.e. they are not trying to get these titles into Australia, Europe or the U.S. in the first place (the vast majority are never translated into English).

• I endorse the above deletion. It's good information but this isn't the right article. Editors should feel free to add it to Censorship in Australia, and link to that article from this one to provide the necessary background and context. (Once again, for disclosure, I'm someone who has been reported in news media as publicly and politically active in opposing Mr Atkinson on this issue in the past.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Organised crime non-association legislation" section

This very large section seems to stray very far away from a biography on Michael Atkinson. Should it be removed or vastly shortened? Timeshift (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sex industry retweets

I think Stavros did a fair thing by making the recent addition and something of that nature shoudl go on the page. Anyone have any other thoughts on this? Donama (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. He copped days of bad publicity, received a public dressing-down by the Premier, which doesn't happen very often for a senior MP from his own side, and had to promise to scale back his public commentary because of his behaviour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all - I got word back from Ammarpad, and he suggested that due to the 'controversial' aspect of my edit, plus its my first time that it be best to add in what I wanted to say here , in the first place :=== Controversies === On the 19th of November 2017 the Sex Industry Network sent a message via twitter showing Christmas decorations made in the likeness of female genitalia, Atkinson then replied to that message, and included female politicians Michelle Lensink, and Tammy Franks saying "So, @sexindustrynetw, @MicLensink & @TammyMLC, do these jolly japes extend to Eid al-Fitr & Vaisakhi, or are they confined to the Feast of the Nativity & Christians." this response saw a stunning rebuke by both female MPs both calling for his resignation and with Franks saying that the interaction is symptomatic of a “pattern” of “bullying” behaviour directed by the Speaker, often towards female MPs. − Atkinson didn't resign, but instead undertook to stop using Twitter instead.

Does anyone have any suggestions, or edits for this ? I would li9ke to htink I took a point of neutrality; but what do others think ? Stavros Gamer (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Atkinson reply needs a citation, or else just summarize what the news article says he did. Thinker78 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 29 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

---

• Michael Atkinson → Michael Atkinson (politician)
• Michael Atkinson (disambiguation) → Michael Atkinson

– There are five names listed at the Michael Atkinson (disambiguation) page and no indication that the retired state (not national)-level political figure has had substantial notability within the wide-ranging English-speaking world outside of his South Australia constituency. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, do it. You'll not get complaints from any South Aussies on this. Donama (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support; even prior to the prominence of Michael Atkinson (Inspector General), this was not a page drowning in traffic by any means. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.