Talk:Michael Danby: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:14, 13 July 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →PAC article from the United States: more tiresome nonsense← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:04, 15 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,307,274 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(95 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	Anonymous persons cannot add "neutrality" tags to articles without explanation. I am removing the tag until an explanation is given. (Declaration of interest: Danby is my employer). ] 15:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
			{{Australian English}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=Start\|listas=Danby, Michael\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography\|politician-work-group=yes\|politician-priority=low}}
			{{WikiProject Australia\|importance=low\|VIC=yes\|VIC-importance=mid\|politics=yes\|politics-importance=low\|Melbourne=yes\|Melbourne-importance=mid}}
			}}
			{{coitalk}}

			==Danby's preselection==
	Over at the debate on "Talk:Lyndon LaRouche/archive4", someone says that Danby is not only your employer, but also: "He is an ardent supporter of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2004, which legalizes--under Australian law--the institutions and procedures as specified in an Executive Order by President Bush, which set up the torture regimes at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. The act cites the relevant Executive Order by Bush by name, and also cites by name the lawless military detention system at Guantanamo Bay, to which that order gave rise. Danby officially spoke in Parliament for the (nominally) opposition Labor Party on behalf of this bill, which was put forward by the neo-con government of Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard." True or false? Don't you think this ought to be covered by the article?

			*Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
	I don't dignify LaRouchite slanders with a response. ] 04:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
			*I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. ] 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

			So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. ] 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
	A slander is by nature false, yes? So are you saying that Danby did not advocate the Anti-Terrorism Act?

			That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Misplaced Pages. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Misplaced Pages has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. ] 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
	Nor do I resond to questions from anonymous people. ] 17:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

			Adam,
	I am no longer anonymous: I have a Misplaced Pages logon now. Go ahead and explain to me whether the information on Danby's role in the Anti-Terrorism Act is incorrect. Also, explain why you, as an employee of Danby, should not be seen as promoting or electioneering for him, by attempting to present a non-critical Misplaced Pages article. I would suggest you let someone edit it who has no personal stake. --] 00:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			The only reason I reverted your link was that it should really be to the original source, the AFR. Is this link not available? Subscriber only?
			cheers,
			] 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
			03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

			== Ellipses in quotes ==
	In response:
			Is is reasonable to provide a quotation with so many ellipses?
	*The bill in question was a government bill which was passed with bipartisan support. It was opposed by (from memory) one Independent member in the House and about 10 minor party Senators. If this comment is to be made about Danby, it must also be made about all 149 MPs and 60-odd Senators who voted for it.
			Without going to Carr's webpage, there is no way to verify what is in the gaps.
	*It is not true that Danby personally has been criticised for voting for the bill, except in the sense that the far left (and LaRouchites) have criticised everyone who voted for it. Danby is being singled out for criticism by this LaRoucheite editor solely because he is Jewish.
			This is not necessarily aimed at this qupte in particular (though a reading of the article will determine the honesty of the selection) but a general query...
	*The bill was in any case a perfectly reasonable response to the threat of terrorism in Australia (following the Bali bombing), which can in no sense be described as "fascist" as the LaRoucheites pretend. That is why, after due parliamentary scrutiny, it was given bipartisan support.
	*Yes I have a difficulty editing this article when Danby is both my employer and a personal friend. But the Danby article I wrote is exactly the same as the ones I wrote for all other backbench MPs, other than to note that he is the only Jewish MP. I have not added any material favourable to him. All I have done is remove LaRouche propaganda from the article. It probably would be better if someone else removed it, but whether it is removed by me or by someone else, it will continue to be removed. ] 01:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			"My view is that Australia is at war," Danby wrote, "at war with a new form of totalitarian ideology as evil as the fascist and communist forms that the democracies fought during the 20th century... The enemy in this war adopts the rhetoric of Islam but it is in fact quite alien to the traditions of Islam, and particularly to the traditions of Islam as practised in Indonesia. Some call this ideology Islamofascism, others jihadism... As a social democrat, I believe in a pluralist Australia. I believe Australia should accept, and indeed welcome, migrants and refugees from all countries, including Muslim countries, and that we should prevent victimisation of Australian Muslims. I reject the view that all Australian Muslims are potential terrorists. I am always careful to distinguish Islam from the extremists who misuse it for political ends." (see link below)
	The article has now been protected. This is ridiculous. How strange that Adam's employer (and the only Jewish MP) is the one to be singled out for this - and right after the ] dispute, no less. ] 03:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	:Take a look at the page history Ambi. ] 14:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			Any comments?
	Weed Harper made the request for protection. ] 04:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			Danke
			] 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

			I see a grand total of two elipses. The link is there for anyone who wants to read the full text. ] 09:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	Danby singled himself out, by his particularly enthusiastic support for the bill. I wouldn't have know he was Jewish, if Adam hadn't mentioned it as often as possible -- Adam can't seem to respond to a disagreement without mudslinging. Everyone who challenges him turns into a far leftist, a LaRouchite, and an anti-Semite. In fact, the bill was opposed by civil libertarians of all kinds.

			The quote could be paraphrased a bit, to cut down on length. ] 10:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	Adam says that the bill was perfectly reasonable. Now, help me out here -- the argument that it is perfectly reasonable to suspend civil liberties to protect us against terrorism -- doesn't that sound awfully familiar? Haven't we heard that one somewhere before? --] 06:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			It was put there to counter the LaRouche allegations that Danby is anti-Muslim. Have the LaRouchies gone away? ] 11:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
	:If it's the law you're disputing, take it somewhere else. For what it matters, I was against it. But the bill had bipartisan support, and many people spoke in support of it. The bill was controversial, but Danby's support of it wasn't controversial on its own. ] 06:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			:The criticisms that Michael Danby is anti-Muslim are highly relevant in the article. Danby's neo-con POV has to be couner-balanced by other POVs, as stipulated by Misplaced Pages's ] policy. ] 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

			As you see, Xtra, the LaRouchies have not gone away. So I think the quote is still needed to counter their slanders. ] 08:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
	==Danby's philosophical roots==
	I am the one who posted the comment about Danby and the Anti-Terrorism Act, over at ]. Since Adam evidently wishes to debate the point, consider this:

			:But vandalistic edits and other nonsense can be reverted out. ] 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
	''Jabotinsky has his sympathisers in Australia. The ''Australia-Israel Review'', for example (which now styles itself "The Review"), was founded by a fanatical Revisionist (as the followers of Jabotinsky were called), Robert Zablud. Former longtime ''AIR'' editor Michael Danby eulogised Zablud, whom he called the "organisational genius" behind the ''AIR'', in the 19 September-2 October 1989 ''AIR'', noting that Zablud's vision of Judaism was inspired by "his mentor Zeev Jabotinsky", whom Danby called "a much misunderstood centre-right Zionist ideologue".''

			When you get Cognition banned for POV-pushing and stalking (he has suddenly developed an interest in ] and in ] because I am editing at those articles), I will agree with you. ] 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
	Who was Jabotinsky? He was the man whom Israeli founding father David Ben-Gurion called "Vladimir Hitler." Ben-Gurion, who had a humanist conception of Zionism based on the greatest and most inspiring traditions of European culture (he learned Spanish so that he might read ''Don Quixote'' in the original), fought Jabotinsky at every turn.

			: Adam, There is only one POV in the article. I see no slanders. Your response is a little disingenuous.
	Jabotinsky and the Revisionists aped the militaristic garb and organizational structure of Mussolini's movement, and attempted to ward off criticism of Mussolini within the Jewish community:
			Ok, there's 2 ellipses. But how much text is removed? The link is to your website, not the AFR. Does this link exist? I think that would be preferable and largely release you from any accusations of bias.
			Further, You don't own this article and you are not the only editor. I can place it on my watchlist lest the LaRouchies return.
			The other option is to take out all "race/religion" references. After all, they don;t form the core of Danby's politics, do they?
			] 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
			Apologies, Adam. I wrote the above before reading the History page...Feel free to keep slapping down frivolous links..
			] 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

			*There is no link to the article at the AFR site, so I got a PDF from the Parliamentary Library media service and stored it in my website's server. The article does not actually appear at my website.
	"Jabotinsky became Mussolini’s defence attorney within the Jewish world. While he was visiting America in 1935 on a lecture tour he wrote a series of articles for New York’s Jewish Daily Bulletin, a short-lived English-language Zionist paper devoted exclusively to Jewish affairs. In the 1930s, most Jews followed the common usage and referred to the fight against Hitler as part of the “anti-Fascist struggle”; Jabotinsky was determined to put a stop to that, since he understood too well that as long as the Jews saw Hitler as another Fascist, they would never approve of the Revisionist orientation towards Mussolini."
			*If you want to remove the whole section dealing with these accusations, I have no objection. It is only there because the LaRouchite Cognition made the accusations in the first place. However I would be very surprised if he allowed you to delete it. If the accusations appear, the rebuttal to the accusations must also appear. ] 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

	The admiration was reciprocated: Mussolini, in 1935, told David Prato, later to become chief rabbi of Rome, that: “For Zionism to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language. The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky.” --Bar-Zohar, ''Ben-Gurion – The Armed Prophet'', p.46.

	That should provide something to discuss on this page. --] 02:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	So basically you are saying that all Zionists are fascists? While I am personally an opponent of Zionism I think that's somewhat of an extreme statement. You seem completely unaware of gradations within Zionism such as ] (the movement founded by Jabotinsky) as opposed to ]. Danby is a Zionist but what evidence do you have that he is a Jabotinskyist? ] 04:47, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	There is a nice irony in Herschelkrustofsky approvingly quoting Ben Gurion, when it is LaRouchite orthodoxy that all Zionists are fascists. Danby is of course a Labor Zionist and, in terms of Israeli politics, broadly a supporter of the Israeli Labor Party (more the Rabin wing than the Peres wing). He does believe that Jabotinsky is a misunderstood figure, although he would not defend Jabotinsky's flirtations with fascism. It is worth noting that Jabotinsky died in 1939, before the full implications of fascist politics for the Jewish people became entirely clear. Many people in the 1920s and 30s admired Mussolini without themselves being fascists. Anyway, none of this in any way sustains the allegation that Danby is a fascist. ] 05:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	:It may not be my place to offer you boys advice, but I would suggest that you modify your approach in the following way: read the LaRouche movement's views on a given topic before you begin to issue proclamations about what it believes. Start with ,and . Andy, you might want to try reading my posts twice, to be sure you understand them, before firing off a response. --] 20:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	Herschel, you should consider yourself fortunate in the fact that anyone bothers to read your posts once. Don't push your luck. ] 22:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	:Despite your flippancy, I think that anyone who reads my remarks and your response will have no difficulty in getting the point. --] 22:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	==Danby and anti-terrorism law==
	----		----

			=== Sunday Sun Herald article ===
	I have created a new article, ], to provide some background for some of this discussion. ] 07:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			I would love to hear from Rebecca about why she deleted this sentence:

	You managed to omit this from your section on critics of the legislation:

	:''The extraordinary success of LaRouche's campaign to dump Cheney in the U.S., echoed by the potency of the CEC's campaigns downunder, has the neo-conservatives in Australia climbing the walls. For example, the CEC ran an ad in the Melbourne ''Age'' newspaper on June 15, which called for the defeat of the latest "anti-terrorism" atrocity, the ''Anti-Terrorism Bill 2004'', which legalizes, under Australian law, the Executive Order by which President Bush established the lawless, torture-ridden regime of Guantanamo Bay. The ad was signed by 90 prominent Australians, including the former chief of the defence force, General Peter Gration; the nation's top Islamic official, Imam T.H. Al-Hilali; and Ken Wriedt, former Cabinet minister under the 1972-75 nationalist Whitlam government. It provoked an hysterical freakout from LaRouche's longtime enemies in both the press and among the "anti-defamation" wing of Australia's neo-conservatives. The latter denounced the CEC for pushing "conspiracy theories with an anti-Semitic flavour," and as a "political cult." A stalwart of this lobby, longtime CEC/LaRouche opponent, Federal MP Michael Danby, ranted that LaRouche is a "fanatic" and called for the Parliament to investigate the CEC.'' --] 22:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	::I don't count LaRouche cranks among serious critics of anything. ] 00:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			:"Labor MPs Julia Irwin and Jennie George have accused an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Misplaced Pages to "blacken the names" of Danby's opponents."
	::Two things. What campaign to dump Cheney, and what success? Secondly, Gration also later retracted his statement, claiming that he'd been misled, and he was pretty angry. ] 23:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	:::My answer will be brief -- I'm still preoccupied with wrangling with Adam 'n' Andy. Immediately before Dubya's inauguration in January 2001, LaRouche warned that Cheney was Bush's ventriloquist, and likened Bush to Mortimer Snerd (you may need to look that one up). As the drumbeat for the invasion of Iraq began to mount in 2002, LaRouche issued a press release that September called In April of 2003, LaRouche issued the first report, which made the cult of ] an international political controversy, as much as Andy might wish it were not so -- Cheney's wife Lynn, who wears the pants in the family, was identified as a disciple of Strauss. All this began to pay off in May of 2004 -- retired 4-star USMC generals Anthony Zinni and Joseph Hoar approached for discussion, gave exclusive interviews to ''EIR'', and then commenced a very public campaign to dump Cheney and the Pentagon chickenhawks. Since that time Cheney has been humiliated over and over, from his outburst of obscenities on the floor of the Senate, to being booed by 50,000 baseball enthusiasts at Yankee Stadium. But I suspect that the "success" referred to in the CEC release may be the ''New York Times'' article reporting that the scandal over Cheney's physician, who was exposed as a dope addict, was merely a pretext to bring in a new physician, who will conveniently find that Cheney is not healthy enough to run for re-election.

			Not notable? Not verifiable? Embarassing to Misplaced Pages?
	:::As far as Gration is concerned, I suspect that he just didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the intimidation from Danby and his mates, unlike --] 21:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			:We should try to steer clear of self-reference and OR here. Just stick to the facts as reported in the article. I realise this makes it hard for Adam to defend himself, but we may assume that the paper will be examining his edits very carefully, and they should pick up on his statements on his where he specifically denies "dirt files", if they are planning any follow up. --] 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	My answer will be brief -- I'm still preoccupied with wrangling with Adam 'n' Andy. Immediately before Dubya's inauguration in January 2001, LaRouche warned that Cheney was Bush's ventriloquist, and likened Bush to Mortimer Snerd (you may need to look that one up).

			I think you rather over-estimate the professional standards of the ''Herald-Sun''. This was a plain and simple smear-job: they had no interest in the facts of the matter, with which they were fully acquainted. ] 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	:And LaRouche was the only person to suggest that Bush would be Cheney's puppet? In fact, this was a very common and popular suggestion made as soon as Cheney was unveiled as Bush's running mate. Everyone from the Democrats to Saturday Night Live has made this suggestion and no, they didn't get the idea from Lyndon LaRouche.
			:OK. Just concerned that we were using your talk page as a source. If this story goes nowhere then we should pull it out of the article. --] 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Xtra, the article as it stands reads:
			::''A Sunday Herald Sun published an article where it quoted Labor MP Julia Irwin accusing an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Misplaced Pages to get "dirt on people". However, these accusations were strongly denied by Carr.''
			:The specific allegation of getting "dirt on people" hasn't been denied by Adam anywhere except on his talk page. This is a small point and I'm not going to make a fuss over it, but your wording goes beyond what we can actually use without self-reference and OR. You've also messed up the wording and removed the wikilinks. In an article that may well be the focus of media attention, I think we should follow established Misplaced Pages policies. --] 10:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

			The allegation is also disproved by looking at what I actually wrote about ]. ] 10:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
	As the drumbeat for the invasion of Iraq began to mount in 2002, LaRouche issued a press release that September called

			Isn't the more relevant question whether the entry should be included
	:Again, LaRouche is far from the only one to link Haliburton and Cheney with the war in Iraq and LaRouche is far from the first person to make such an accusation.
			in the article at all? What does it offer the casual reader of the page? Barely nothing of any import.
			It only serves ot make Misplaced Pages look like a vindictive whinge session.
			Please feel free to repond to this, otherwise I plan to cut out the reference.
			] 08:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
			:Perhaps it is more relevant to ]. Unless this turns into a story with legs, it should be removed. I suggest giving it a week for the Sunday paper to come out with any followup, and if there's nothing, then pull it out of this article. --] 09:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
			::It seems to be growing legs.
			:::Factiva and the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre both only have one article each (the Herald Sun article) about this. I don't think that equates to "growing legs". ] (]) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

			If they are legs....they're pretty stubby and useless. I plan to yank the reference as they have offer almost nothing to the casual reader.Any objections?
	In April of 2003, LaRouche issued the first report, which made the cult of ] an international political controversy, as much as Andy might wish it were not so --
			] 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

			:I support removal of the reference. ] (]) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	:As much as Herschel wishes it wasn't so LaRouche wasn't the first or the most notable person to put forth arguments about the Straussian influence in the Bush Administration. We've been over this before (yawn)

			==== Removed ====
			I've removed the para about Julia Irwin, Adam Carr and the ''Sunday Herald Sun''. Here's a copy:
			:The ] published an article where it reported that an advisor to Danby, Dr. ], had been accused of using Misplaced Pages to "blacken the names of MPs." Labor MP ] was quoted saying that Carr was "getting dirt on people." However, the accusations were strongly denied by Carr.
			(Hmm ... I overlapped edits with ], who stole my line about the ''Inquirer'' item before I even wrote it ;-)<br>
			Reasons:
			#This article is about Michael Danby, not Dr. Carr, Julia Irwin or (the topic of most interest to most people reading this) Misplaced Pages.
			#Incidents like these are common and non-notable in politics.
			#The newspaper report is (to be very polite) not a very impressive piece of journalism.
			#Julia Irwin got her facts wrong, but we shouldn't. If we retain this stuff, we should add text explaining that it wasn't Dr. Carr who put the offending material in the article. A long paragraph about one minor incident involving one of Danby's staffers would unbalance the article.
			#This is just another inter-factional spat in the ALP. They've been going on for decades. Outsiders such as me find them very tedious; I understand that some of the participants do too.
			Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

			:Good call, and good rationale. So I'll just say "what he said". ] 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
	Cheney's wife Lynn, who wears the pants in the family,

			== David Southwick - To decrease Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports? ==
	:What would a LaRouche screed be without at least one misogynistic comment thrown in for good measure. Clara Fraser's analysis of LaRouche grows more and more in my estimation.

			Mr Adam Carr - you state that Southwick spent quarter of a million dollars on his Liberal campaign. What is your proof? A statement by Michael Danby under parliamentary privilege stating that is not proof. Please explain?
	was identified as a disciple of Strauss. All this began to pay off in May of 2004 -- retired 4-star USMC generals Anthony Zinni and Joseph Hoar approached for discussion, gave exclusive interviews to ''EIR'', and then commenced a very public campaign to dump Cheney and the Pentagon chickenhawks.

			As you state that Southwick ran deliberately to decrease the Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports (which would not realistic help Southwick to get in politics since only 10-15% of Jews live in Melbourne Ports and it is the Greens that gets Michael Danby into parliament and the Jewish vote would not make any substantial difference)? I do recall that David Southwick contest a pre-selection against another Liberal contender. Did Michael Danby during 2003-4 have any Labor Party members challenge him for a preselection? Because it is unfair to say that Southwick was pre-selected because of the religion he and his ALP opponent worship. I look forward to the former employer of Michael Danby MHR, Mr Adam Carr for a response. Kind regards, Greg ] 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:May of 2004? There have been rumblings about dropping Cheney from the ticket for at least a year now. LaRouche is jumping on this bandwagon rather late, don't you think?

			== Dispute over Michael Danby and Division of Melbourne Ports articles in Misplaced Pages ==
	Since that time Cheney has been humiliated over and over, from his outburst of obscenities on the floor of the Senate, to being booed by 50,000 baseball enthusiasts at Yankee Stadium. But I suspect that the "success" referred to in the CEC release may be the ''New York Times'' article reporting that the scandal over Cheney's physician, who was exposed as a dope addict, was merely a pretext to bring in a new physician, who will conveniently find that Cheney is not healthy enough to run for re-election.

			Sent Date 08-09-2006 6:11:21 PM
	:This is all because of LaRouche? Or all because of the unpopularity of the war and the growing view that again predated the LaRouche "campaign" that Cheney is the "Prince of Darkness". The web is replete with anti-Cheney websites and material dating back before this May.

			From "catonbishop" <catonbishop@lycos.com>
	:Perhaps, for his next trick, LaRouche will claim responsibility for day following night or for the earth revolving around the sun or for the tide coming in? Herschel, maybe you should get out more or at least try reading some non LaRouchite material. I suppose when you only hear what LaRouche has to say you're bound to think he's the first on the block to have said it.] 22:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	::Your Lord Haw Haw routine is way stale.

			To <info-en-q@wikimedia.org>
	Herschel, if you're going to accuse me of being a Nazi propagandist you should at least have the guts to log on and do so under your username. ] 05:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

	:Your accusation is misplaced. I see no need to point fingers at you; I prefer to see you hoisted by your own petard. --] 15:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			To Whom It May Concern:

			In the Michael Danby article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Danby. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of two percent, lower than the Victorian and national average swing, and not enough to overcome Danby's 5.7 percent margin."
	what on earth has all this got to do with Danby? ] 01:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			In the Division of Melbourne Ports article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Labor. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of about 1.5%, lower than both the national and state swings."
	:One does wonder that. ] 01:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
	::Not so mysterious, Ambi -- what I wrote was in response to your question of 23:40, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) (see above). Then, Andy couldn't resist the temptation to add his own gloss. The whole thing probably belongs on someone's User_talk page. --] 14:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			Those articles were stating that David Southwick, Liberal Candidate for Melbourne Ports ran against Michael Danby in order to decrease his Jewish votes. There is no evidence that that is the true reason why Southwick ran against Danby. However there was political and media hype that it was the first time Australian Federal politics that two Jews have run against each other (these articles were altered with those similar words). Yet people like Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes have reverted it and stated that there is no evidence of a politcal and/or media hype over Danby vs Southwick. My evidence is the Australian Jewish News, the Herald Sun and the Australian newspaper during the 2004 Australian Federal election campaign. I accuse Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes of being pro-Labor and making these articles a bias for the ALP when they should be apolitical and be objective.
	"MELBOURNE, Aug. 13 (EIRNS)--AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE
	REJECTS CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO LAROUCHE, CEC. A call for an investigation of Lyndon LaRouche's Australian associates, the
	Citizens Electoral Council, has been rejected by the Australian
	Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
	Jabotinskyite Michael Danby called for the CEC to be investigated
	by the Committee for its funding, following a CEC advertisement
	in major papers in June, denouncing the Howard government's
	fascist anti-terrorism laws. Committee chairman Petro Georgiou
	wrote to the CEC on Aug. 10, stating, "I am writing to confirm
	that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is not
	undertaking an investigation into the CEC, nor is it proposing to
	do so." This is the second time Danby has been knocked back by
	the Committee, of which he is the Vice-Chairman."
	] 20:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			I ask that the sentences that relate to Southwick deliberately running against Danby just to decrease his Jewish votes should be removed from Misplaced Pages immeidately.
	Adam insists that Danby is just one out of 149 MPs that supported the bill. Not so. He stands out by reason of his hysterical attacks on the CEC ad campaign opposing the bill as a step toward fascism in Australia. And to describe my description of the bill as "highly polemical" is laughable: I refer to "], which will enable people to be arrested for "consorting," or associating with "terrorists," whether at church (or mosque), community events, or even in the home." That is either true, or false; there are no inflammatory adjectives, or anything else that could be called "polemical."--] 20:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
			Please find attached the sources:

			http://en.wikipedia.org/Division_of_Melbourne_Ports
	==Danby and Muslims==

			http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Danby
	Andy replaced "bellicose attitude toward the Muslim world" with "hawkish attitude toward the Mid-East." The former is correct. Danby's widely circulated attack on Mahathir of Malaysia, as well as his attitude toward Australian Muslims, makes the point. Adam goes on to delete "hawkish attitude toward the Mid-East", saying that it is unnecessary to say it, because the article already reports that Danby supports Israel. News flash: there are many people in the world who have discovered that one supports Israel far better by promoting peace between her and her neighbors, than by promoting constant conflict.--] 20:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

			Thank you for your attention
	== Danby's Stance on Racism ==

			I look forward to your response and actions
	I am no supporter of Danby, but it is rediculous to suggest that he is not ant-racism. Just because someone who hates you says something about you does that make it true? If you want to see evidence of Danby's stance on racism, read hansard, read his speaches. I doubt you will find him supporting racism, but i recon you will find him opposing it. ] 22:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			Yours faithfully
	Xtra, you need to bone up on Misplaced Pages ] policy. Under this policy, all points of view must be represented. You may disagree with the Muslim critics of Danby, but they exist nonetheless and this must be reflected in the article. You are welcome to present material to discredit his critics, but you cannot just wish them away. ] 22:31, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			Caton Bishop
	:you can't say that what your putting up is NPOV. To say that someone who has stood up many times against racism is not actually anti racism because some people who don't like him, is stupid, incorrect and verging on defamation. ] 22:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			==NPOV?==
	that doesn't mean you can say I have red hair, when my hair is in fact brown and post that! Especially when you '''are''' promoting POV ] 22:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			This paragraph needs expanding imo:
			:Danby has sometimes been accused of being hostile to Muslims or to Islam. He countered this accusation in an article in the Australian Financial Review in November 2005.(see link below)

			So we have a link to Danby's side of the story, but nothing is said or linked to about the accusations against him. I've currently put a {{Talkfact}} in, I think the current information should be added to or referenced. ] 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
	If someone representing an institution of some sort were to insist that Xtra has red hair, then under the ] policy it should be included in any article on Xtra. Then, you would be free to present rebuttal material. You cannot, under the ] policy, exclude a public and verifiable point of view because you disagree with it. ] 22:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

	~~BTW,~~ ~~please~~ ~~note~~ that my ~~edit~~ ~~does~~ ~~not~~ ~~say~~ ~~that~~ ~~Danby~~ is ~~not anti-racist~~. It ~~says~~ ~~that~~ ~~his claim to~~ be ~~anti-racist is disputed~~. ] 22:51, 9 ~~Nov~~ ~~2004~~ (UTC)		This dates back to the stuff that was inserted in the article by the LaRouchite Cognition. It can probably now be removed. ] 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
			:Are you suggesting it's objectively non-notable or non-notable because editors you don't like* mentioned it? Cause it actually sounds like the sort of information which might be useful for an uninformed but interested reader to know and the fact that he wrote an AFR article rebutting the allegations (which I've just notice isn't actually linked "below") indicates to me that it's the sort of thing which is notable enough to warrant at least some external linkage so readers can figure out what was going on. On a more general note, this article and the references section in particular is a mess. Mind if I put a cleanup tag in or is that pointless? And it's a shame that the article has absolutely no information on what Danby has done in parliament, policy positions, advocacy, committees, media attention/statements etc. I'm sure there are editors (I don't know if you're too close to do it, but surely there's someone) who could make this more than a 3rd rate piece with very little information. ]
			:<nowiki>*</nowiki>Perhaps for good reason, but I haven't delved into that mess and don't intend to

			*It would be notable if the allegation could be sourced to someone credible, rather than to LaRouche crackpots. The article I cited provides an effective refutation of the charge, but at the moment there is no charge to refute.
	it is blatant POV designed to mislead. are you even australian? have you ever met danby? have you ever heard one of his speeches? ] 22:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			*I don't think this article is much better or worse than most of the others we have on backbench federal MPs.
			*I have agreed not to edit any articles on Australian politicians (except to delete obvious defamation and vandalism), so someone else will have to do any improvements you think desirable. ] 11:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

			==Anonymous trolling==
	== External Links ==

			Will be deleted as often as it appears. ] 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
	The second external link which purports to be from the AJN is in fact not. If you follow the link, it is to a website which is '''not''' the AJN or maintained by the AJN or with any actual link to the AJN and in fact says that the article is not as it appeared in the AJN. In fact, the site is maintained by an "The Age" journalist. As such, I think it should be re-tagged ommitting reference to the AJN. ] 22:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			: An anonymous user, whom Adam Carr doesn't want you to hear, wrote:
			::' Danby's former membership to the Liberal Party '

			::I recall chating to Geoffrey Connard, a former Liberal State MP and he stated that Michael Danby was a former member of the McKinnon Branch of the Liberal Party. Connard stated that he left the Liberal Party, because "he felt that there was no future for him there, so he joined the Labor Party." I prefer to remain anonymous but it would be nice to find tangible evidence that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party and add it to the article ] 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	Re the first link, Barnett retracted and apologised for his comments about Danby when challenged over their inaccuracy. I will find the documentation for this. ] 22:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			::' "The only Jewish member of Parliament" '
	==vote in jewish areas==
	in the past, in caulfield (the jewish area of melbourn ports), in federal elections, the labor / liberal split was 50/50, whereas at state elections it was 60 / 40 in favour of the liberals. this seems to show a high support for danby amongst jewish liberal voters. thus while it would most certainly be incorrect to say that there is a tendancy in jewish areas to vote labor, regular liberal voters seem to have been voting for danby. i have yet to see the split from this election, but am wondering if southwick did actually win votes in caulfield? ] 03:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			::I beleive this statement is wrong because Roger Price and Greg Hunt both have Jewish mothers and in accordance to Jewish law, they are also Jewish. To state that Danby is the only Jew is wrong. Then again, once Mark Dreyfus wins the seat of Isaacs, there will be more than one Jew in Parliament anyway and Danby will lose his status as the so-called "only Jew in Parliament" ] 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
	There was a swing of 4-6% in the Caulfield booths, where the more wealthy Jews live, and an 11% swing in the postal vote, which is where many Orthodox Jews vote. There was a much lower swing in East St Kilda, where less wealthy Jews and older Jews live. This shows that Southwick did take some Jewish votes from Danby, but not as many as he hoped, and not enough to win. The Southwick family spent an estimated $250,000 on their campaign, by the way. ] 03:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			] 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

			Now you listen here ADAM CARR - I once had membership in the Liberal Party in the Bentleigh electorate. I am providing information that I have heard from the Hon Geoffrey Connard himself and he told it to my face that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party. I kept myself anonymous, because I don't want people knowing who I am. Now I've provided my Wikidentity, so make a response! ] 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	==Xtra==
			:First of all, comments like "Now you listen here ADAM CARR" are inappropriate. Please be civil. Secondly, information you "heard from" various people is original research and unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. We can only publish what we can ] via ]. This is the case for all articles on Misplaced Pages, but particular so for ]. It may help you to read through the pages I have linked to. ''']''' 11:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

			==Danby's former membership to the Liberal Party==
	Xtra, your comment in reverting my edits ("stop reverting this page to your racist veiws") is not only illiterate, it is preposterous. I am providing a sourced, direct quote from Muslim critics of Danby. Your reverted version puts words in their mouths, suggesting that they have a hidden agenda (i.e., they don't really think Danby is anti-Muslim, and their motive for saying so is that they are angry with him for supporting Israel) -- you are, in effect, slandering his critics. Additionally, your characterization of my "veiws" as racist constitutes a ], which is forbidden under Misplaced Pages policy, and I ask you to desist. Perhaps we should ask for mediation on this article; I am completely willing. --] 16:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			I recall chating to Geoffrey Connard, a former Liberal State MP and he stated that Michael Danby was a former member of the McKinnon Branch of the Liberal Party. Connard stated that he left the Liberal Party, because "he felt that there was no future for him there, so he joined the Labor Party." I prefer to remain anonymous but it would be nice to find tangible evidence that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party and add it to the article ] 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	:a person can express racist views without being a racist. in any event, i apologise for using such extreme language. however, i stand by my claims that the edits that you propound are less than reasonably capable of being seen as truthful as a sense of true reflection of events and people. such editing, in my veiw, can promote unwaranted fear, angst and hatred leading to racism. p.s. don't attack my literacy, i may not be able to spell, but i am far from iliterate, i can read what you write and i know what it means. ] 23:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			:] stated:
	==NPOV dispute==
			*Danby has been active in the Labor Party since he was a teenager (see the photo at the ] article). When and why would he have joined the Liberal Party? If he did, there will be witnesses and records. Where are they?

			:: I never said he was a member of the Liberal Party. These are the words of Geoff Connard. Maybe he joined the party when he was a teenager, was there for a month, didn't like it and then joined the ALP. Anything possible. But who really knows? Like the Liberal Party is going to give an ALP member like yourself Mr Carr their party records. <redacted by Sarah> That's why I did not put it on the wikipedia articles, but it would be vandalism and it would have a lack of proof. ] 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	Xtra, you reverted this edit:
			:::As I've explained above, your information is not acceptable for Misplaced Pages unless you can provide some reliable sources that verify it. Additionally, I've removed your speculation about the mental state, truthfulness etc of another person. Please familiarise yourself with our policy on biographies of living people (]). Comments such as you made here are not permitted on ''any'' pages of Misplaced Pages and that includes talk pages. ''']''' 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
	:However, he has been criticised as "one of the most vociferous opponents to Islam in Canberra" by ] and pro-] activists; his supporters assert that this accusation is due to his strong support for Israel.

			=="The only Jewish member of Parliament"==
	...to this one:
	:His strong support for Israel has led to criticism from ] and pro-] activists .

			I believe this statement is wrong because Roger Price and Greg Hunt both have Jewish mothers and in accordance to Jewish law, they are also Jewish. To state that Danby is the only Jew is wrong. Then again, once Mark Dreyfus wins the seat of Isaacs, there will be more than one Jew in Parliament anyway and Danby will lose his status as the so-called "only Jew in Parliament" ] 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
	First of all, the one you don't like seems to be the one that fits the quotes, not the "strong support for Israel" one. But regardless, how do you defend your description of the first edit as "vandalism"? I mean, give me a break. ] 12:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			:] said: *Danby is the only federal MP who identifies himself as Jewish. If there are other MPs who are technically Jewish, they have chosen not to identify as such in public, as is their right.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2\|}}}\| {{{2}}}\|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
	of what first edit? please explain your possition properly so i can respond to whatever it is you are complaining about. you and your friend Herschelkrustofsky appear to have a wierd obsession with michael danby. i wonder why? ] 12:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
			::I don't know about "technically Jewish," but Greg Hunt and Paula got married at St John's Anglican Church in Sorrento. I find it hard to believe he would marry in an Anglican Church if he identifies as Jewish. You will need to find some sources if you want to say he is Jewish or "technically Jewish" or whatever. ''']''' 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

			According to M Grattan in this morning's Age (2/2/07), Danby was one of only 3 ALP MP who did not sign the petition for David Hicks' repatriation. Any comments? Is this worthy of addition?
	:I quote two edits above, the one that you reverted ''from'', and the one that you reverted ''to''. Let's call the first of these the "first edit." That's the one you called "vandalism" in your edit summary. Why is that? ] 13:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
			] 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

			: Roger Price is Catholic, was married in a Catholic Church and attends Mass. He'd no doubt be startled to discover that anyone thinks he is 'technically Jewish'. ] 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	it is planely obvious on the face of it that while one version gives a background and a reason for the attacks on danby, the other arranges things out of context. the version i have reverted to is far more factually accurate and in context than the other. to mention something out of context without a full and accurate explanation is sloppy at best and propogander pushing at worst. the continued reversion to the other version is vandalism. i will take the appropriate steps if that version is re-included. ] 15:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			Without commenting on the circumstances of any Member of Parliament, under Jewish law a person with a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of what religion they practise (see ] for the best-known example). But individuals also have a right to identify, or not identify, as they choose, with any religious or ethnic community. Danby is the only member of the current federal Parliament who identifies as a Jew. ] 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	Xtra, it is unacceptable to misrepresent the views of Danby's Muslim critics. If you believe that they are being dishonest, post some rebuttal information. But the cited quotes clearly and unambiguously accuse Danby of an anti-Muslim bias, and you are attempting to present it as something different (and less embarassing to Danby.) You are allowing your POV to distort your editing judgement. I repeat my offer to go to mediation on this. --] 15:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			: Agreed. And in any case, who cares what religion people are identifying with? Michael Danby, Roger Price or even John Howard could suddenly convert to Buddhism, or Judaism, or become Jedi Knights if they wished. Without evidence that it affected their lawmaking it would be a complete irrelevance.] 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	::stop your bull, herschelkrustofsky. this from the person who says that if you attack Mahatir from malaysia you are anti-muslim. you should read what slandarous lies Mahatir has spouted about jews in general. see who is the racist there.

			In Danby's case it certainly does affect his views and actions in some areas, and is therefore a notable fact which the article needs to note. ] 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	::i have not misrepresented anyone's views. if anyone has it is you. it is unconscionable to mention that danby has muslim critics who say "bla bla bla" about him without having the precursor "oh by the way, this is only because he is an ardent supporter of israel".

			: It would be an interesting question whether his views and actions are specifically influenced by his religion in itself, or whether they are influenced (as everyone's are) by his religion only as part of his overall character. When considering an issue, does Mr Danby make a decision on the basis of an overall philosophy which incorporates religion, upbringing, experience and so on , or does he specifically measure the decision against his Jewish faith? I suspect only he could answer this, and it's an academic point anyway.
	::oh, and believe me. i don't care about embarassing danby. embarass him all you like. just use the truth and not a pack of lies built around some quotes taken out of context.

			:Being the only (or if people prefer, one of a small number of) Jewish MP's is notable enough for inclusion either way, just as it is notable that Graham Edwards is the only MP in a wheelchair, or that Brian Harradine was the longest-serving Senator. ] 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	::i won't go to mediation over this. mediation requires mutual good faith and you have demonstrated in the past that you have none, and in these matters you are only interested in maintaining your highly POV edits. ] 15:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			*If anyone wants to state that any MP other than Danby is Jewish, they must provide a reference. Otherwise it is just hearsay and thus ].
	:::Herschelkrustofsky. you are not disputing any facts. you are only disputing how they should be presented. as such your sign is innapropriate. ] 08:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			*I didn't say Danby's views and actions were influenced by his religion. I said they were influenced by his being Jewish, which is not quite the same thing. Obviously his views on the Middle East, and less obviously his views on national security and foreign policy generally, are thus influenced. ] 07:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	:::every edit you make to this page, i will revert, unless it is a genuine contribution. ] 08:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			: Out of curiosity, do you know if there have been any other recent Federal MP's who have been Jewish? None spring to mind but my political knowledge doesn't stretch far outside of NSW. ] 08:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	there are two versions of this page:
	*the bipartisan, australian member's verson (of this australian politician), and
	*the american larouchist version
	while our version is tolerant of other's veiws, the larouchist only want their view aired.

			Pharez Phillips (Prot, Wimmera Vic, 1901-06), Isaac Isaacs (Prot, Indi Vic, 1901-06), Vaiben Solomon (FT, South Aust, 1901-03), Elias Solomon (FT, Fremantle WA, 1901-06), Max Falstein (ALP, Watson NSW, 1940-49), Syd Einfeld (ALP, Phillip NSW, 1961-63), Joe Berinson (ALP, Perth WA, 1969-75), Dr Dick Klugman (ALP, Prospect NSW, 1969-90), Dr Moss Cass (ALP, Maribyrnong Vic, 1969-83), Barry Cohen (ALP, Robertson NSW, 1969-90). I haven't checked but I think that's all. Also ALP Senator Sam Cohen (Vic, died 1969). The only Jewish Liberal has been Senator Peter Baume. ] 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
	i ask. is this article realy being disputed over facts or as a method to push propogander?
			== WikiProject class rating==
			This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. ] 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

			== The diva advert story ==
	i further ask. why would a bunch of americans care so much as to repeatedly vandalise the article of a '''minor''' australian politician. he has never been a minister in any government. he has never had a high political appointment. he has never even had a high up opposition possition. all he is, is '''a''' '''deputy''' opposition whip. why the intense interest? is it because he is jewish, and supports israel??? ] 22:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			The story does appear in The Age, so it's not about the person being there or not. But after reading the article, this simply doesn't belong in the article. The story is literally 1 paragraph long, in amidst many other "life" stories. Adding this here gives ] to a minor story. Per ], we shouldn't be trying to record everything that is published about a given subject--only the things that have the most weight for the overall story. ] (]) 10:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
	Because he is Jewish and because he has been a prominent critic of the CEC (the local LaRouche
	franchise), the League of Rights and other anti-Semite scum. ] 08:21, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			==Recent edits (2011)==
	:Adam, need I remind you that your accusation that I am an anti-Semite is not only maliciously false, but that it is also a personal attack in violation of the ArbCom ruling? --] 16:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			I have removed two sentences at the end of the article which were not sourced. It is a basic rule of Misplaced Pages that all statements of fact must be sourced. ] (]) 06:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
	::Herschelkrustofsky. read adam's sentence more carefully. nowhere does he accuse you of being an anti-semite. howver, if you wish to be associated with anti-semetic organizations, that's your business. ] 22:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			== Edits by Alp watcher, August 2013 ==
	==Ongoing NPOV discussion==

			] , that ] suggested was "defamation" and . Alp watcher the material saying that it was sourced.
	I didn't want to engage in a dead-end revert war with Xtra; he seems to be unable to move beyond a circular argument. It it clear that is representation of the the quotes from Danby's Muslim critics, that they oppose him for being pro-Israel, does not correspond to the quotes themselves, which state that they oppose him for being anti-Muslim. I was willing to let Xtra's false representation stand, so long as the NPOV tag remained to direct the reader to the dispute on the talk page. Adam should not take this to mean, however, that I no longer dispute Xtra's representation. So, in order to demonstrate my sincerity to Adam, I have replaced Xtra's formulations with more accurate ones.
	--] 16:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			I'm not happy with the material either, so I've:
	I don't doubt the sincerity of Herschelkrustofsky's attachment to his LaRouchite fantasies: merely their sanity. ] 16:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			* the word "allegations" to one paragraph, to more accurately match the reference.
	Herschelkrustofsky's version is not more accurate. it is less accurate and is no more than POV vandalism. ] 21:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
			* one paragraph because the cited ref does not say that proceedings were suppressed (which is the main clause of the deleted sentence).
			* the section "Intimidating behaviour towards women" because:
			** The cited ref says the Greens were outraged - but I don't think that's necessarily "attracting controversy" - controversy would require some other (than Dandy) party to express a differing opinion. (The ref uses the word "controversial" to describe Rhiannon, not Danby.)
			** The ref does not say Danby intimidated anyone - merely that he "described" Rhiannon.
			] (]) 12:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

			== Percentage of Jews in Melbourne Ports Electorate ==
	:The quotation that HK is proposing to include seems to be taken out of context:
	::Don’t take any Party for granted. Don’t assume that Labor Members are more supportive than the Coalition. In fact one of the most vociferous opponents to Islam in Canberra is the Labor Member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Michael Danby. (Ironically, he won his pre-selection with support from Righ–wing Labor Muslims!) http://www.famsy.com/salam/Muslimvote0204.htm
	:It would be misleading to include one clause of the quotation without also mentioning that the speaker acknowledges that Danby receives electoral support from Muslims. -] 20:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			I'm not entirely happy with the of the sentence "Jews only make up about 10% of Melbourne Ports Electorate." at the beginning of the section. I seems to be a little out of place, not fitting in with the rest of the paragraph. Given the contents of the section, the Jewish percentage of his electorate may be relevant, but perhaps some rewording is required. Was his Jewry a significant factor in his election? If so, we should say so explicitly. ] (]) 03:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
	In what way would that be misleading, Will? Is it your contention that when the writer refers to Danby as "one of the most vociferous opponents to Islam in Canberra" he is being facetious? He uses the term "ironically" to describe support for Danby from right-wing Labor Muslims, and puts an exclamation point at the end of his parenthetical sentence. --] 02:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			== External links modified (January 2018) ==
	:I note that Xtra has now added this new formulation: "His strong support for Israel and his stance against terrorists and their supporters has led to criticism from ] and pro-] activists," which worsens the NPOV problem with the article, since it could be taken to mean that Muslims and Palestinians are assumed to be terrorists or terrorist supporters. I have reverted to the previous version that I posted. --] 02:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::HK, If you would like to include the entire phrase then that would be different. Or, maybe something like, "One critic, while admitting that Danby receives support from key electoral support from Muslims, calls him "One of the most...."." All in all, I think that it is problematic to use a quote that you have to take out of context to make your point. The fact that Danby gets support from many Muslims makes this one critic's comments less weighty. You could have excerpted the last line instead just as easily: "he won his pre-selection with support from Righ–wing Labor Muslims." -] 03:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
	:::I've tried to improve it, but the problem is still that of giving a single critic excessive weight. For balance, maybe some quotations from people with different views? -] 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	==PAC article from the United States==
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603131824/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/MEMBERS.HTM to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/members.htm
	I'm not saying that this is a potential source for this article (it isn't), but it's interesting evidence that Danby quite well known even all the way across the world. Misplaced Pages's own Adam Carr is even mentioned in this article. ] 15:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603131824/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/MEMBERS.HTM to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/MEMBERS.HTM

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	A typical piece of LaRouche filth, queer-baiting me while actually confusing me with someone else, since I don't own a pink shirt. ] 16:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	I will send them a note asking them to verify the information. In the meantime, I will keep in mind that the events are contested. ] 16:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
	:LaRouche websites are not considered reliable sources for ''anything'' in Misplaced Pages. Your continued promotion of LaRouche's theories is contrary to ArbCom rulings. -] 03:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

			== Apparent COI editing ==
	::Writing to a LaRouche publication asking them to verify something would be a painfully pointless exercise — it reminds me of ]'s example about buying a second copy of a newspaper in the morning to make sure that what he'd read in the first copy was correct.

			Hi all, please be aware that this article is periodically edited by Melbourne-based IP editors with no other edits on the project to remove content unfavourable to the article's subject. Thanks. ] (]) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
	::Material emanating from the ] is regarded as original research and may be deleted on sight by any editor, except in articles closely related to LaRouche. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:04, 15 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Danby article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Victoria / Melbourne / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Michael Danby is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Danby's preselection

Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. Adam 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. DarrenRay 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Misplaced Pages. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Misplaced Pages has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. Adam 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam, The only reason I reverted your link was that it should really be to the original source, the AFR. Is this link not available? Subscriber only? cheers, 198.208.16.221 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ellipses in quotes

Is is reasonable to provide a quotation with so many ellipses? Without going to Carr's webpage, there is no way to verify what is in the gaps. This is not necessarily aimed at this qupte in particular (though a reading of the article will determine the honesty of the selection) but a general query...

"My view is that Australia is at war," Danby wrote, "at war with a new form of totalitarian ideology as evil as the fascist and communist forms that the democracies fought during the 20th century... The enemy in this war adopts the rhetoric of Islam but it is in fact quite alien to the traditions of Islam, and particularly to the traditions of Islam as practised in Indonesia. Some call this ideology Islamofascism, others jihadism... As a social democrat, I believe in a pluralist Australia. I believe Australia should accept, and indeed welcome, migrants and refugees from all countries, including Muslim countries, and that we should prevent victimisation of Australian Muslims. I reject the view that all Australian Muslims are potential terrorists. I am always careful to distinguish Islam from the extremists who misuse it for political ends." (see link below)

Any comments? Danke 198.208.16.221 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I see a grand total of two elipses. The link is there for anyone who wants to read the full text. Adam 09:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The quote could be paraphrased a bit, to cut down on length. Xtra 10:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It was put there to counter the LaRouche allegations that Danby is anti-Muslim. Have the LaRouchies gone away? Adam 11:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms that Michael Danby is anti-Muslim are highly relevant in the article. Danby's neo-con POV has to be couner-balanced by other POVs, as stipulated by Misplaced Pages's WP:NPOV policy. Cognition 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As you see, Xtra, the LaRouchies have not gone away. So I think the quote is still needed to counter their slanders. Adam 08:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

But vandalistic edits and other nonsense can be reverted out. Xtra 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

When you get Cognition banned for POV-pushing and stalking (he has suddenly developed an interest in Cuba and in Indigenous Australians because I am editing at those articles), I will agree with you. Adam 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Adam, There is only one POV in the article. I see no slanders. Your response is a little disingenuous.

Ok, there's 2 ellipses. But how much text is removed? The link is to your website, not the AFR. Does this link exist? I think that would be preferable and largely release you from any accusations of bias. Further, You don't own this article and you are not the only editor. I can place it on my watchlist lest the LaRouchies return. The other option is to take out all "race/religion" references. After all, they don;t form the core of Danby's politics, do they? 198.208.16.221 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Apologies, Adam. I wrote the above before reading the History page...Feel free to keep slapping down frivolous links.. 198.208.16.221 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no link to the article at the AFR site, so I got a PDF from the Parliamentary Library media service and stored it in my website's server. The article does not actually appear at my website.
If you want to remove the whole section dealing with these accusations, I have no objection. It is only there because the LaRouchite Cognition made the accusations in the first place. However I would be very surprised if he allowed you to delete it. If the accusations appear, the rebuttal to the accusations must also appear. Adam 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Sun Herald article

I would love to hear from Rebecca about why she deleted this sentence:

"Labor MPs Julia Irwin and Jennie George have accused an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Misplaced Pages to "blacken the names" of Danby's opponents."

Not notable? Not verifiable? Embarassing to Misplaced Pages?

We should try to steer clear of self-reference and OR here. Just stick to the facts as reported in the article. I realise this makes it hard for Adam to defend himself, but we may assume that the paper will be examining his edits very carefully, and they should pick up on his statements on his user page(s) where he specifically denies "dirt files", if they are planning any follow up. --Jumbo 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you rather over-estimate the professional standards of the Herald-Sun. This was a plain and simple smear-job: they had no interest in the facts of the matter, with which they were fully acquainted. Adam 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Just concerned that we were using your talk page as a source. If this story goes nowhere then we should pull it out of the article. --Jumbo 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Xtra, the article as it stands reads:

A Sunday Herald Sun published an article where it quoted Labor MP Julia Irwin accusing an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Misplaced Pages to get "dirt on people". However, these accusations were strongly denied by Carr.

The specific allegation of getting "dirt on people" hasn't been denied by Adam anywhere except on his talk page. This is a small point and I'm not going to make a fuss over it, but your wording goes beyond what we can actually use without self-reference and OR. You've also messed up the wording and removed the wikilinks. In an article that may well be the focus of media attention, I think we should follow established Misplaced Pages policies. --Jumbo 10:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The allegation is also disproved by looking at what I actually wrote about Julia Irwin. Adam 10:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the more relevant question whether the entry should be included in the article at all? What does it offer the casual reader of the page? Barely nothing of any import. It only serves ot make Misplaced Pages look like a vindictive whinge session. Please feel free to repond to this, otherwise I plan to cut out the reference. 138 08:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more relevant to Adam Carr. Unless this turns into a story with legs, it should be removed. I suggest giving it a week for the Sunday paper to come out with any followup, and if there's nothing, then pull it out of this article. --Jumbo 09:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be growing legs.

Factiva and the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre both only have one article each (the Herald Sun article) about this. I don't think that equates to "growing legs". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If they are legs....they're pretty stubby and useless. I plan to yank the reference as they have offer almost nothing to the casual reader.Any objections? 138 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I support removal of the reference. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I've removed the para about Julia Irwin, Adam Carr and the Sunday Herald Sun. Here's a copy:

The Sunday Herald Sun published an article where it reported that an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, had been accused of using Misplaced Pages to "blacken the names of MPs." Labor MP Julia Irwin was quoted saying that Carr was "getting dirt on people." However, the accusations were strongly denied by Carr.

(Hmm ... I overlapped edits with User:138, who stole my line about the Inquirer item before I even wrote it ;-)
Reasons:

This article is about Michael Danby, not Dr. Carr, Julia Irwin or (the topic of most interest to most people reading this) Misplaced Pages.
Incidents like these are common and non-notable in politics.
The newspaper report is (to be very polite) not a very impressive piece of journalism.
Julia Irwin got her facts wrong, but we shouldn't. If we retain this stuff, we should add text explaining that it wasn't Dr. Carr who put the offending material in the article. A long paragraph about one minor incident involving one of Danby's staffers would unbalance the article.
This is just another inter-factional spat in the ALP. They've been going on for decades. Outsiders such as me find them very tedious; I understand that some of the participants do too.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good call, and good rationale. So I'll just say "what he said". Rebecca 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

David Southwick - To decrease Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports?

Mr Adam Carr - you state that Southwick spent quarter of a million dollars on his Liberal campaign. What is your proof? A statement by Michael Danby under parliamentary privilege stating that is not proof. Please explain?

As you state that Southwick ran deliberately to decrease the Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports (which would not realistic help Southwick to get in politics since only 10-15% of Jews live in Melbourne Ports and it is the Greens that gets Michael Danby into parliament and the Jewish vote would not make any substantial difference)? I do recall that David Southwick contest a pre-selection against another Liberal contender. Did Michael Danby during 2003-4 have any Labor Party members challenge him for a preselection? Because it is unfair to say that Southwick was pre-selected because of the religion he and his ALP opponent worship. I look forward to the former employer of Michael Danby MHR, Mr Adam Carr for a response. Kind regards, Greg LibDeepThroat 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Michael Danby and Division of Melbourne Ports articles in Misplaced Pages

Sent Date 08-09-2006 6:11:21 PM

From "catonbishop" <catonbishop@lycos.com>

To <info-en-q@wikimedia.org>

To Whom It May Concern:

In the Michael Danby article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Danby. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of two percent, lower than the Victorian and national average swing, and not enough to overcome Danby's 5.7 percent margin."

In the Division of Melbourne Ports article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Labor. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of about 1.5%, lower than both the national and state swings."

Those articles were stating that David Southwick, Liberal Candidate for Melbourne Ports ran against Michael Danby in order to decrease his Jewish votes. There is no evidence that that is the true reason why Southwick ran against Danby. However there was political and media hype that it was the first time Australian Federal politics that two Jews have run against each other (these articles were altered with those similar words). Yet people like Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes have reverted it and stated that there is no evidence of a politcal and/or media hype over Danby vs Southwick. My evidence is the Australian Jewish News, the Herald Sun and the Australian newspaper during the 2004 Australian Federal election campaign. I accuse Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes of being pro-Labor and making these articles a bias for the ALP when they should be apolitical and be objective.

I ask that the sentences that relate to Southwick deliberately running against Danby just to decrease his Jewish votes should be removed from Misplaced Pages immeidately. Please find attached the sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Division_of_Melbourne_Ports

http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Danby

Thank you for your attention

I look forward to your response and actions

Yours faithfully

Caton Bishop

NPOV?

This paragraph needs expanding imo:

Danby has sometimes been accused of being hostile to Muslims or to Islam. He countered this accusation in an article in the Australian Financial Review in November 2005.(see link below)

So we have a link to Danby's side of the story, but nothing is said or linked to about the accusations against him. I've currently put a in, I think the current information should be added to or referenced. Psychobabble 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This dates back to the stuff that was inserted in the article by the LaRouchite Cognition. It can probably now be removed. Adam 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it's objectively non-notable or non-notable because editors you don't like* mentioned it? Cause it actually sounds like the sort of information which might be useful for an uninformed but interested reader to know and the fact that he wrote an AFR article rebutting the allegations (which I've just notice isn't actually linked "below") indicates to me that it's the sort of thing which is notable enough to warrant at least some external linkage so readers can figure out what was going on. On a more general note, this article and the references section in particular is a mess. Mind if I put a cleanup tag in or is that pointless? And it's a shame that the article has absolutely no information on what Danby has done in parliament, policy positions, advocacy, committees, media attention/statements etc. I'm sure there are editors (I don't know if you're too close to do it, but surely there's someone) who could make this more than a 3rd rate piece with very little information. Psychobabble

*Perhaps for good reason, but I haven't delved into that mess and don't intend to

It would be notable if the allegation could be sourced to someone credible, rather than to LaRouche crackpots. The article I cited provides an effective refutation of the charge, but at the moment there is no charge to refute.
I don't think this article is much better or worse than most of the others we have on backbench federal MPs.
I have agreed not to edit any articles on Australian politicians (except to delete obvious defamation and vandalism), so someone else will have to do any improvements you think desirable. Adam 11:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous trolling

Will be deleted as often as it appears. Adam 14:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user, whom Adam Carr doesn't want you to hear, wrote:

' Danby's former membership to the Liberal Party '

I recall chating to Geoffrey Connard, a former Liberal State MP and he stated that Michael Danby was a former member of the McKinnon Branch of the Liberal Party. Connard stated that he left the Liberal Party, because "he felt that there was no future for him there, so he joined the Labor Party." I prefer to remain anonymous but it would be nice to find tangible evidence that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party and add it to the article 203.213.97.205 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

' "The only Jewish member of Parliament" '

I beleive this statement is wrong because Roger Price and Greg Hunt both have Jewish mothers and in accordance to Jewish law, they are also Jewish. To state that Danby is the only Jew is wrong. Then again, once Mark Dreyfus wins the seat of Isaacs, there will be more than one Jew in Parliament anyway and Danby will lose his status as the so-called "only Jew in Parliament" 203.213.96.116 05:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DavidRudolf 15:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you listen here ADAM CARR - I once had membership in the Liberal Party in the Bentleigh electorate. I am providing information that I have heard from the Hon Geoffrey Connard himself and he told it to my face that Danby was a former member of the Liberal Party. I kept myself anonymous, because I don't want people knowing who I am. Now I've provided my Wikidentity, so make a response! LibDeepThroat 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, comments like "Now you listen here ADAM CARR" are inappropriate. Please be civil. Secondly, information you "heard from" various people is original research and unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. We can only publish what we can verify via reliable sources. This is the case for all articles on Misplaced Pages, but particular so for biographies of living people. It may help you to read through the pages I have linked to. Sarah 11:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Danby's former membership to the Liberal Party

Adam Carr stated:

Danby has been active in the Labor Party since he was a teenager (see the photo at the Peter Costello article). When and why would he have joined the Liberal Party? If he did, there will be witnesses and records. Where are they?

I never said he was a member of the Liberal Party. These are the words of Geoff Connard. Maybe he joined the party when he was a teenager, was there for a month, didn't like it and then joined the ALP. Anything possible. But who really knows? Like the Liberal Party is going to give an ALP member like yourself Mr Carr their party records. <redacted by Sarah> That's why I did not put it on the wikipedia articles, but it would be vandalism and it would have a lack of proof. LibDeepThroat 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've explained above, your information is not acceptable for Misplaced Pages unless you can provide some reliable sources that verify it. Additionally, I've removed your speculation about the mental state, truthfulness etc of another person. Please familiarise yourself with our policy on biographies of living people (BLP). Comments such as you made here are not permitted on any pages of Misplaced Pages and that includes talk pages. Sarah 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"The only Jewish member of Parliament"

I believe this statement is wrong because Roger Price and Greg Hunt both have Jewish mothers and in accordance to Jewish law, they are also Jewish. To state that Danby is the only Jew is wrong. Then again, once Mark Dreyfus wins the seat of Isaacs, there will be more than one Jew in Parliament anyway and Danby will lose his status as the so-called "only Jew in Parliament" LibDeepThroat 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Carr said: *Danby is the only federal MP who identifies himself as Jewish. If there are other MPs who are technically Jewish, they have chosen not to identify as such in public, as is their right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LibDeepThroat (talk • contribs).

I don't know about "technically Jewish," but Greg Hunt and Paula got married at St John's Anglican Church in Sorrento. I find it hard to believe he would marry in an Anglican Church if he identifies as Jewish. You will need to find some sources if you want to say he is Jewish or "technically Jewish" or whatever. Sarah 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

According to M Grattan in this morning's Age (2/2/07), Danby was one of only 3 ALP MP who did not sign the petition for David Hicks' repatriation. Any comments? Is this worthy of addition? 198.208.16.221 03:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger Price is Catholic, was married in a Catholic Church and attends Mass. He'd no doubt be startled to discover that anyone thinks he is 'technically Jewish'. Jeendan 00:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the circumstances of any Member of Parliament, under Jewish law a person with a Jewish mother is a Jew, regardless of what religion they practise (see Jean-Marie Lustiger for the best-known example). But individuals also have a right to identify, or not identify, as they choose, with any religious or ethnic community. Danby is the only member of the current federal Parliament who identifies as a Jew. Adam 03:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And in any case, who cares what religion people are identifying with? Michael Danby, Roger Price or even John Howard could suddenly convert to Buddhism, or Judaism, or become Jedi Knights if they wished. Without evidence that it affected their lawmaking it would be a complete irrelevance.Jeendan 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In Danby's case it certainly does affect his views and actions in some areas, and is therefore a notable fact which the article needs to note. Adam 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be an interesting question whether his views and actions are specifically influenced by his religion in itself, or whether they are influenced (as everyone's are) by his religion only as part of his overall character. When considering an issue, does Mr Danby make a decision on the basis of an overall philosophy which incorporates religion, upbringing, experience and so on , or does he specifically measure the decision against his Jewish faith? I suspect only he could answer this, and it's an academic point anyway.

Being the only (or if people prefer, one of a small number of) Jewish MP's is notable enough for inclusion either way, just as it is notable that Graham Edwards is the only MP in a wheelchair, or that Brian Harradine was the longest-serving Senator. Jeendan 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to state that any MP other than Danby is Jewish, they must provide a reference. Otherwise it is just hearsay and thus original research.
I didn't say Danby's views and actions were influenced by his religion. I said they were influenced by his being Jewish, which is not quite the same thing. Obviously his views on the Middle East, and less obviously his views on national security and foreign policy generally, are thus influenced. Adam 07:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you know if there have been any other recent Federal MP's who have been Jewish? None spring to mind but my political knowledge doesn't stretch far outside of NSW. Jeendan 08:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Pharez Phillips (Prot, Wimmera Vic, 1901-06), Isaac Isaacs (Prot, Indi Vic, 1901-06), Vaiben Solomon (FT, South Aust, 1901-03), Elias Solomon (FT, Fremantle WA, 1901-06), Max Falstein (ALP, Watson NSW, 1940-49), Syd Einfeld (ALP, Phillip NSW, 1961-63), Joe Berinson (ALP, Perth WA, 1969-75), Dr Dick Klugman (ALP, Prospect NSW, 1969-90), Dr Moss Cass (ALP, Maribyrnong Vic, 1969-83), Barry Cohen (ALP, Robertson NSW, 1969-90). I haven't checked but I think that's all. Also ALP Senator Sam Cohen (Vic, died 1969). The only Jewish Liberal has been Senator Peter Baume. Adam 08:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The diva advert story

The story does appear in The Age, so it's not about the person being there or not. But after reading the article, this simply doesn't belong in the article. The story is literally 1 paragraph long, in amidst many other "life" stories. Adding this here gives undue weight to a minor story. Per WP:NOTNEWS, we shouldn't be trying to record everything that is published about a given subject--only the things that have the most weight for the overall story. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits (2011)

I have removed two sentences at the end of the article which were not sourced. It is a basic rule of Misplaced Pages that all statements of fact must be sourced. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edits by Alp watcher, August 2013

User:Alp watcher added some text, that User:Frickeg suggested was "defamation" and reverted. Alp watcher restored the material saying that it was sourced.

I'm not happy with the material either, so I've:

Added the word "allegations" to one paragraph, to more accurately match the reference.
Deleted one paragraph because the cited ref does not say that proceedings were suppressed (which is the main clause of the deleted sentence).
Deleted the section "Intimidating behaviour towards women" because:
- The cited ref says the Greens were outraged - but I don't think that's necessarily "attracting controversy" - controversy would require some other (than Dandy) party to express a differing opinion. (The ref uses the word "controversial" to describe Rhiannon, not Danby.)
- The ref does not say Danby intimidated anyone - merely that he "described" Rhiannon.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of Jews in Melbourne Ports Electorate

I'm not entirely happy with the insertion of the sentence "Jews only make up about 10% of Melbourne Ports Electorate." at the beginning of the section. I seems to be a little out of place, not fitting in with the rest of the paragraph. Given the contents of the section, the Jewish percentage of his electorate may be relevant, but perhaps some rewording is required. Was his Jewry a significant factor in his election? If so, we should say so explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Danby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparent COI editing

Hi all, please be aware that this article is periodically edited by Melbourne-based IP editors with no other edits on the project to remove content unfavourable to the article's subject. Thanks. Cjhard (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Categories: