Talk:Piers Akerman/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fascism comment

"Curiously, the most obvious fascism around, Islamofascism, does not appear to have made an impression on Leunig nor do the suicide bombers who target the innocent. Maybe the cartoonist, like the Organisation of Islamic Countries which has for the past nine years refused to let the UN define terrorism, doesn't know a terrorist when he sees one." Piers Akerman, The Daily Telegraph [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ta bu shi da yu (talk • contribs) 13:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech

Any word on Akerman being arrested for assaulting protestors in Sydney around March 16th 2006? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.230.126.23 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Wasnt it funny how he says he's sick of protestors who disrespect free speech.....[redacted as per blp]

He was the one jostled and pushed to the ground when protesters tried to block people going in to hear Condi Rice's speech. Have a look here.

"[redacted as per blp]" - was that your signature? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elitism (talk • contribs) 05:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

He was the one who claimed to be jostled, at least. In hindsight the claim appears to have been 'journalistic licence' by Mr Akerman to emphasise his view of the protestors. Despite his statements in the article (linked above), no charges were laid and there was no video evidence to back the claim. There is certainly no evidence that Mr Akerman jostled anyone either. Jeendan 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cocaine

The article makes it seem that the cocaine allegations are just comments by Mark Latham behind parliamentry privelidge, and have not been stated without such, yet the Crikey article linked at the bottom makes allegations about drugs - presumably they are not protected by parliamenty privelidge. - Matthew238 01:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair reporting of Parliamentary proceedings would not be defamatory, original Parliamentary privilege or none. That's the law, my beautiful friend.

True - Crikey is just reprinting a parliamentry speech - but not one of Mark Latham's.

Akerman's comment on Wikipedia and Wikiscanner

Thought it should be noted that Akerman has blogged regarding Wikipedia/Scanner in general, and also about this article in particular, stating that it is inaccurate and based on an inaccurate article. I've no special knowledge of which parts may or may not be accurate, so I can't edit the main page. His post can be found here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22318905-5007146,00.html Brendan Cosman 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the reference to the criticism of Wikipedia column. The guy's a columnist - he's probably written thousands of columns. Why is this one singled out? If a secondary source covers the column, it's reasonable for inclusion. The material might reasonable be moved to Criticism of Wikipedia, but without a secondary source, it should not be included here. WilyD 15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Where is the inaccurate info though? I have added some citation tags to benign stuff. Incidently, for one so enamoured with the truth and a dislike of slander, Piers doesn't mind dishing it out himself. Most of here aren't "on the fringe". How would he know? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As usual with Piers articles I have no idea what he's on about. Who has been alerted to inaccuracies in the article, there's nothing here. I might see if I can do a work history, might be interesting.Ticklemygrits 08:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tickle there were a lot of BAD BLP violations on this talk page, that had been here for months. Thats might be what he was complaining about. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 08:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Major Overhaul in progress

• I'm busy with the page, don't fret if it looks a little messy at the mo'   Skopp   02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why has a huge chunk of info being removed from this article without any reason given? Given it is a BLP I will wait a little while for a response before looking too closely at the merits for the unexplained removal. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 06:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all been added back in. Vandalism reported too.   Skopp   07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

controversies

It seems a bit strange to remove all the controversial things about Akerman, the man wouldn't be notable if it weren't for all the controversies he has been involved in over the past few years. We definitely need to adhere to WP:BLP but that does not extend to censorship. Thoughts? WikiTownsvillian 12:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Censorship" in this case is a meaningless buzz word. It's not censorship by any means, it's getting rid of a section that devotes itself to attacking the man through opinion, and which takes up half of the article. By that sentence alone, for now, I rest my case. Michael ^talk 12:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needed to be toned down a heap and the block quotes removed (now I look at the history) but I'm sure this article used to have properly referenced criticism, if I was mistaken my apologies. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The entire section should be taken out, and instances of fact—I believe Latham references his early life, for example—inserted where appropriate. Michael ^talk 12:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All items are properly referenced and from the most respectable sources. RfC this if you are miffed.   Skopp   22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on Skoppy, come on, don't just revert, argue why this section makes the article better, more neutral, more balanced, come on...! Michael ^talk 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to invent the facts, just report them. If you have countervailing facts, or balancing facts, insert them, but if you want to censor the article based on your history of conservative-leaning edits, then that will be resisted.   Skopp   22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• To stop your edit warring, beneaththelandslide, I have précised the text so that it is not out of balance in the article (it was a tad long), while retaining all the salient facts.   Skopp   23:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"my" "edit warring" and my "history of conservative-leaning edits" —— LOL. I have many a leftist on here who can tell you that my edits have been very much in check for the many years I've been on here. Go find something better to do... I hear tie dyes and smoking bongs is all the rage these days among your kind.

And you're not reporting facts. You're reporting opinion, and opinion is inherently subjective. And don't tell me to counterbalance; what a crock. You don't counterbalance, because by telling me to counterbalance you're admitting that your little "controversies" section is already making the article unbalanced (enough 'balancing' in that sentence?). Michael ^talk 07:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks both of you. WikiTownsvillian 10:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Having a big controversies section is clearly POV, but I must say that I do find the current state of the article a bit odd - it doesn't give a particularly good feel for who the guy is. Rebecca 00:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The section is not "big", it's not POV (simply states facts), and if you find the article "odd", why don't you add to the other sections and flesh it out, instead of carping on the talk page?   Skopp   01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's called undue weight. Whacking on a section at the end and citing every instance someone caused a stir doesn't just make for a POV article, it makes for a crap article. A more sensible way of targeting these issues would be to cover where he fits in ideologically, where he's published, the sorts of influence he has, and to work any actually important controversies into the text of the article. Rebecca 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well then, why don't you do the footwork to get that data into the article, instead of removing well-cited facts?   Skopp   06:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because I could care less about Piers Akerman, though would rather a shorter, decent article, to one that is long and crap. Rebecca 06:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversies section is short and simply recounts details that are in the public domain. This is in keeping with many other BLP pages and not outside WP guidelines. Please do not edit the page with suppression of facts in mind.   Skopp   06:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the issue here is undue weight - just because something is in the public domain does not necessarily make it in any way notable. Who cares that Richard Jones called him a name ten years ago? Don't assume that someone is reverting you because they have an ideological stake in the matter, either - I vote Green and detest Akerman, but I also would like to see this article not suck. Rebecca 07:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard to find anything more notable than statements made in Parliament by a Leader of the Opposition, inter alia. I'll re-insert that paragraph after whittling it down to make it less "crap", according to you. Ask yourself: "Would any half-decent biography of Akerman include these facts, or not?" Geddit?   Skopp   07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It might include the Latham comment, although that is very debatable, and not in the first line of a "controversies" section, although I maybe could see it being discussed in the context of his influence. As for the Jones comment, no - Akerman, as a controversial figure, has been called many things by many people. Rebecca 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are other objections, I'm going to insert the edit:

Akerman's alleged self-confessed use of illegal drugs was cited in both the New South Wales Parliament as well as the Australian Federal Parliament.

Does anyone have good cause as to why this sentence should be excluded?   Skopp   23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

BLP issues. Just because someone made a claim under parliamentary privilege does not mean that it's verifiably true. Moreover, repeating the claims without other verification is potentially libelous. Rebecca 00:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, so what about this then. The Sunday Age printed this about him:

Among his critics there is no shortage of rumors, even extending to previous cocaine and alcohol abuse. Asked about this allegation Mr Akerman, who is clearly overweight, replied: "My appearance belies that story, don't you think?"

So the proposed text for insertion could read:

Responding to rumors about his alleged abuse of alcohol and cocaine, cited in both the New South Wales Parliament as well as the Australian Federal Parliament,, and in a Sunday Age article about him in 1991, Akerman, who is clearly overweight, replied: "My appearance belies that story, don't you think?"

That is not open to a libel charge (my son is a lawyer, and he confirms).   Skopp   01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PAs schooling is round the wrong way: he left Christchurch Grammar for Guildford Grammar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.bracebolt (talk • contribs) 04:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Climate science training

The article notes Akerman's views on climate change as follows: "Although he has no formal education in climate science, he justifies his strong views by quoting the work of.."

I have removed the reference to no formal education because it implies that having formal education is a requirement for informed comment on the topic. As such it is a point of view rather than a verifiable fact. Most opinion columnists have no formal training in the issues they discuss, and that of itself is not enough to discredit their views. Al Gore had no formal climate change education before he became an activist on the issue. If a reliable secondary source makes reference to Akerman's lack of formal education on this issue, we might be justified in including it. Without that, we're just expressing a view.

Obviously there are other opinions on this issue, as the sentence fragmeent has been removed and restored a couiple of times. If the removal remains controversial, I'd like to invite anyone with an opinion to express it here so a consensus can be reached either way. Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound. As a point of record though, I must admit that when I was still researching articles to edit (inappropriately so, as I now know), I found this in the Al Gore article

In 1967 Gore took a course on climate science from Roger Revelle which made a strong impression on him, influencing him in the direction of environmental concerns.[21]

Because of that, I chose to amend the CB article instead, leaving Al Gore who had evidenced such an education. I think the key would be consistency across all articles, and at the moment I agree with Euryalus that the topic should only be brought up, should relevant evidence exist. That said, it still is a POV that a journalist cannot provide an opinion on an issue if they don't maintain formal education in that field. The entire Wikipedia article base would need review if every opinion and whim of journalists needed references on their education. Obviously this might be complicated by the fact that most journalist only have education in, well... journalism (Al Gore would be the exception that proves the rule). Martin0001 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Al Gore's education. Arguably the course you reference makes him more a barefoot doctor than a neurosurgeon, so perhaps the point remains. Anyway, there would be times where noting someone's lack of formal qualifications is relevant, but it would need a source here, and sufficient context to explain its inclusion. Euryalus (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)