Talk:Drew Pavlou

The Courier-Mail and The Australian

Does any editor have subscriptions in The Courier-Mail and The Australian? The following articles might have more details on his political party and the billboard/advertising situation:

• Pavlou launches political party vying for senate spot
• Advertising setback for China critic Drew Pavlou

Thanks in advance. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Political career and billboard/advertising situation

@ItsPugle: You reverted (diff) way more than the mention of "more than 2000 members". Personally, i don't care whether this is removed or not, but i initially saw it as a relevant detail. Besides, this is sourced with an article by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which is a reliable source, and cannot be removed per WP:WEASEL. By the way, the over 2000 membership relates to a recent Australian law that requires a minimum of 1500 members for the creation of a party (see here). I also don't agree with the WP:NPOV issue you addressed. I don't see anything that violates this policy, and the version you reverted back to, was also less detailed; such as the Uyghur candidates being two (the prior version says "[m]ultiple"), and the four candidates in total (aside of Drew), having Uyghur, Hong Kong, and Tibetan backgrounds. I also included their names. You also removed every mention of the billboard/advertising situation. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: I would appreciate a comment in order to understand what you consider an WP:NPOV violation, and if valid, how it can be addressed. Personally, i don't see any WP:NPOV or WP:WEASEL violation. Regardless of that, reliably sourced content will have to be reinstated. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993: I promise I will get back to you, but it won't be for at least 24 hours. Appolgies for the tardiness, but I'm still working at the moment and don't have the spare time at the moment to read and consider your reply. ItsPugle (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: A week has passed. I understand you were working, and that it is holiday season, but this is not a complicated issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993: Apologies again for the delay. I've been doing COVID drive-through and hotel quarantine testing for 12 - 18 hours each day for the past two weeks, so I haven't exactly been the best at engaging with people or literally anything else outside work. I'm not going to re-revert again since I can understand your frustration with waiting for me, and for that I thank you, but I aim to reply to you sometime soon. Tim (Talk to me) 11:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding my position as well. I wouldn't have a problem to wait more, but since your schedule isn't certain, and you gave me the green light, i will reinstate the content and we can discuss any concern you may have when you are ready; i will not include the "more than 2000 members" statement, since you were directly opposed to it in your edit summary. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:ENGLISH and WP:UNDUE

@Colgated: You reverted me with the following edit summary, WP:PROPER is clearly irrelevant, in fact I was fixing the non-capitalised proper noun "Chinese Communist party" by editing in the official name of the party (CPC). Please expand on what is UNDUE on the talk page.

MOS:PROPER is relevant. Communist Party of China being the official name of the party is no valid argument for your revert. We ought to use nouns that are most familiar to readers of English. This has already been established in the respective article of the Chinese Communist Party per WP:COMMONNAME, and extensively discussed in its talk page with a number of unsuccessful requested moves. Even the numerous references in this article, with the exception of one, use "Chinese Communist Party" instead of "Communist Party of China"; see WP:ENGLISH (If an examination of the sources in an article shows that one name or version of the name stands out as clearly the most commonly used in the English language, we should follow the sources and use it. Whenever something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead.).

Now on WP:UNDUE. You chose to include in the lede the following (in bold), In May 2020, he was suspended for two years from the University of Queensland who alleged 11 instances of misconduct, including bullying and discrimination. The UQ Senate Disciplinary Appeals Committee upheld only two of the over eleven initial allegations; specifically, one was Pavlou's posts on a Facebook page known as UQ Stalkerspace, and the second was a March 2020 incident in which Pavlou, while wearing a hazmat suit, hung a sign outside the office of the UQ vice chancellor, Peter Høj, that read: "Covid-19 Biohazard: Condemned." So, the inclusion of allegations such as "bullying and discrimination" in the lede, appears to be WP:UNDUE; especially when it lacks any mention of the conclusion by SDAC.

I also have an issue with the description of EOKA as an anti-communist organization, when it was much more than that; namely, a nationalist, conservative, anti-imperialist, and anti-communist guerilla organization. Furthermore, it was most notable for its anti-imperialist struggle against British rule in Cyprus, and the eventual union (Enosis) with Greece. Not even the lede in the respective article describes it as anti-communist. We would need to include its other ideologies as well, but i don't see why we should include so many details about an organization that essentially falls outside the scope of this article; or how it would improve readability. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so WP:ENGLISH would be the relevant policy to cite, unless I'm wrong, MOS:PROPER has nothing to do with this. Thanks for the capitalisation edit. I wasn't aware of the consensus about using the informal version.

I can understand that failing to include information about the conclusions would be undue, but I am simply repeating the information from the section "Suspension from the University of Queensland" - which of the two (bullying and discrimination) charges would you say were upheld? I don't see a problem with including the ones that were upheld, especially since the conclusion seems to already be in the lede.

Can you tell me what policy would prohibit adding descriptors about the EOKA organisation? The lede in the respective article is not much of a lede, being a single sentence. If it's outside the scope of the article, why include this information about EOKA at all? The reference seems to implicitly justify the inclusion by quoting that "it can be seen why he feels passionate to ardently defend a cause he believes in", indicating some sort of political heritage. The anti-communist part of this organisation would seem to be even more relevant than the nationalist part, if this organisation has been desrcibed by sources as a sort of inspiration or political heritage for Pavlou, considering Pavlou's anti-communist views. Thanks, Colgated (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, both MOS:PROPER and WP:ENGLISH are relevant; it's just that the latter is more specific to what was argued, and expands on it. MOS:PROPER mentions that proper names "are frequently a source of conflict, especially when different cultures, using different names, "claim" someone or something as their own. Wikipedia does not adjudicate such disputes, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English." It is under a section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, but that doesn't make it irrelevant; you are correct that WP:ENGLISH should have been preferred though, as it is more specific. I will change the title of the section accordingly as well.

I am not aware of what was posted exactly by Pavlou on UQ Stalkerspace; it could pertain to "bullying and discrimination" for all we know, and that's why i wrote that it "appears" to be WP:UNDUE. Thus, i have no problem with the reinstatement of what you added in the lede, as long as the final charges by SDAC are included in more detail likewise.

Now on EOKA. What you are writing is one additional reason why i think that the description of EOKA as anti-communist would give the wrong impression to the reader. I have also touched upon EOKA appearing to be a factor in how his personality evolved (diff). Pavlou does indeed seem to have been inspired by the participation of an ancestor of his in the organization; but this inspiration has to do with the organization's revolutionary ideals, and its anti-imperialist struggle against the British. Here is the actual quote from the reference:

• Greek-Australian student, Drew Pavlou, is facing a University of Queensland disciplinary hearing on April 27, where university administrators will likely expel the philosophy student....The student also revealed to Greek City Times that his family hailed from Larnaca in Cyprus' south coast and that he had revolutionary heritage with his grandmother's brother becoming a martyr as an EOKA fighter against British occupation. With a martyr in his family, it can be seen why he feels passionate to ardently defend a cause he believes in.

I personally haven't read any comment of Pavlou criticizing communism as an ideology; it's evident from posts he has published – agreeing with Bob Katter ([1], [2], [3]) – that he views the Chinese Communist Party more as an imperialist "fascist" regime, than literally communist. His opposition to the party has more to do with the human rights aspect, than anything else ([4]). Furthermore, EOKA was a far-right nationalist organization, but Pavlou is actually a left-wing libertarian socialist ([5]). EOKA was also a religiously conservative – Orthodox Christian – organization, and was also opposed to Turkish Muslim ambitions in Cyprus; while Pavlou is a progressive activist who constantly speaks for human rights, and focuses on Turkic Muslim Uyghurs, as well as Tibetans and Hongkongers. So you see, the only real parallels between EOKA and Pavlou, in terms of ideology, are their anti-imperialist views; as is also evident in the aforementioned quote.

Last, i have no problem with some other edits you did. Namely (in bold):

• In July 2019, during the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, Pavlou organised a protest at the University of Queensland in support of the Hong Kong democracy movement.
• ... with an eye specifically on alleged issues related to the Communist Party of China, ...

These are in accordance with WP:NPOV. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

After reading your arguments + new info I hadn't seen, I'm in no disagreement with your position. I'll reinstate the edits you did not have a problem with. Thanks so much, Colgated (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Npov

Really don't desire to waste time edit warring. But try to understand that "alleged" means precisely that. It means "alleged". You cannot just present that Drew is telling the truth when he had accused the Met police of illegally denying him of his rights, etc. So stop adding in statements as if everything Drew writes or claims, is to be taken as hard facts at face value especially when they are merely allegations and have not been proven to be ruled as true by a court. 49.186.55.170 (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"Accusations" of racism

Accusations is most often a legal term. None of the citations cite legal proceedings. Allegations might be the better term, it is the term used in the Sydney Herald piece re: the college reprimands. The term "racism" is pretty dubious also.

Also A LOT of summary and conjecture. The first sentence use of "targeting" is highly dubious. Its opinion and unsubstantiated by any of the sources.

The cited sources actually contradict this. Such as the Crikey piece, "Pavlou, who campaigns against the Chinese government, believes the quotes had allegedly been added to the document to “paint him as a racist”.

Also, the citations are utterly disorganized. The first 2 paragraphs could be deleted alone for mis-citation. Stono rebellion (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Call to action on this article by the article subject

The article subject, who has a substantial X/Twitter following, asked followers to edit this article. Ex: https://twitter.com/DrewPavlou/status/1734036522096271480 Should this article be protected? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, I am of the opinion that § Allegations of racism should be considerably shortened to about a single paragraph; it currently comprises more than half of § Political career. Furthermore, a placement under § Activism and controversies might be more appropriate. HadesTTW, if you have some free time, can you please work on it? Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Demetrios1993 and Stono rebellion that I don't think the sources cited actually support a paragraph entitled "Accusations of racism". The NYT article includes the claims that some white protesters said "go home" and so-forth, but they do not include anything saying that Pavlou said this. Erin Wen Ai Chew's quote also doesn't explicitly state that Pavlou is racist, instead it says that what he says "can encourage racism", not "is racist". The Honi Soit article isn't a high-quality source, is an opinion piece, and also doesn't explicitly accuse him of racism. Similarly the OHPI article. The Crikey article also doesn't substantiate this - quite the opposite. For this reason, since there appear to be three editors including myself expressing concerns about this section, I'm going to blank the section.

It doesn't matter that Pavlou doesn't like this section. This is a WP:BLP situation and for BLP articles we should use high-quality sources and avoid anything that is potentially defamatory, which I think we are at risk of here by edging towards saying something that the sources don't support. Dedicating an entire paragraph to this would be WP:UNDUE in any circumstance. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

NPOV edits

I've given the article a heavy edit, particular considering this is a WP:BLP article by a not un-litigious individual where we should be careful not to make contentious statements without a firm grounding in reliable sources. A lot of parts of the article seemed to be aimed at hyping a particular aspect of an event rather than just summarising what secondary sources say about it, and I've tried to turn it back in to being a summary. I've also given the lead section an edit to remove the citations there per MOS:LEADCITE. FOARP (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)