![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Definitely should be a section on this guy's nicknames and the fact he cannot make up his mind on anything! Dankru 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Because I'm sick of seeing this article pop up on my watchlist, I've protected it until y'all compromise or one party's bloated corpse is found floating in the Murrumbidgee, whichever is soonest. Please try to grow up and get on with each other, guys, because otherwise I'm turning this encyclopaedia right around and there'll be no reduction of systemic bias for anyone! fuddlemark ( fuddle me!) 10:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The comments by anonymous Xtra lack logic.
If the preceding sentence before the phrase saying he opposes extremism demonstrates Joyce is not an extremist then there is no need to add the redundancy.
My dictionary defines extremism as "Any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies". Given Joyce's implacable opposition to abortion I think this fits.
If extremism is alternatively defined as the outlier on a normal curve and given that Joyce is among a small minority of a minority in this stance (ie catholics are a minority in Australia and catholics opposing abortion are a minority within catholics), and a tiny minority within the wider Australian population then he is indeed extremist and any attempt to say he is not is merely trying to support him politically.
Further, Joyce has said his main purpose in political life is the single issue of preventing women having choice over their pregnancies - ie preventing them choosing abortion. Such dogmatic attempts to control other people and being so focussed on the single issue is extreme. Mccready 07:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous Xtra's personal attack on me violates the wiki code and does little to address the argument. David Gannon's pre-emting of any decision and support for vituperation over logic doesn't help. I request both of you to address the arguments above. In addition, 27% of 84% and then a small minority within the 27% equals the far end of the normal curve. Joyce does not represent the views of the majority of his electorate. I know many catholics and not one supports Joyce's views on abortion. I believe that in addition to addressing the arguments, both anonymous Xtra and David Cannon owe me an apology for this type of behaviour. (Unsigned comment by Mccready)
<POV>
bizzo was out of line, but the "Unsigned comment by Mccready" is standard practice when somebody forgets to sign their words, to avoid confusion. In both cases, the spirit of your words weren't altered: the POV thing was clearly marked as being David Cannon's work, and the unsigned thing was entirely appropriate. David's problem here was being
uncivil, not altering another's text. It was very rude.
fuddlemark (
fuddle me!)
06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Thanks for your gracious apology David, and I apologise for forgetting to sign my post. If we are agreed that saying either someone is extreme or someone is not extreme is indeed POV, then would it be better to leave it out and all get onto doing other things on wikipedia? :-) Mccready 06:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I have dropped by this article for a while, and I'm glad to see you have all been having fun. Can someone tell me what this section is doing in this article?
Also the paragraph on VSU is out of date since the bill has now passed. Adam 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is again open to editing. Hopefully the cooling-off period was long enough.-- cj | talk 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that this actually took place, but the tone of the text seems somewhat POV. Is there any better way to put the sentence at end of 1st section in more civil tone? -- Brynic 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Joyce did not give the coalition the majority:
Xtra 09:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I know, I've made edits to that effect and have been reverted once by User:Ambi. Please see [1], where a similar discussion is going on. JSIN 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Main thing needed I think is some formatting - it currently looks like a pastiche of news pieces, and given the likely importance of this guy in the next Senate, we should probably be getting ready. One starting point may be this article in today's Age - do we have a list of the 19 times he crossed the floor? Orderinchaos 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
"Nonetheless he gained office with preference flows from Family First Party, amongst many others including Pauline Hanson."
I'm really struggling to see the point of this sentence, especially the last part from the comma onwards. No idea what Hanson has to do with it. And in a secret ballot, how can we know whose preferences went anywhere? HiLo48 ( talk) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Liberal 867,276 38.29 +3.39 2.6800 [quotas] The Nationals 149,719 6.61 -2.55 0.4627 [quotas]
Group Total 102,824 4.54 0.3177
An editor has just added military service to the Infobox for this Australian politician. While the information is of value, I feel that putting it in the Infobox is placing undue weight on it. Unlike in the USA, where the Infobox was no doubt created and may work fine, Australians place a lot less emphasis on military service as a measure of a politician's (or any person's) worth.
Joyce has many other attributes. To just pick out military service and emphasise it so strongly by putting it in the Infobos, is inappropriate.
Yes, include it in the body of the article, but not where it is now.
HiLo48 ( talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The statement "mining is banned under the Antarctic Treaty" is not correct and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.250.112 ( talk) 05:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the first time that I've dropped by this article and it's in a huge mess. Whilst I've tried to make some attempt in cleaning it up by adding sections; improving the citations; moving the external links to inline citations; and adding various {{ cn}} templates where appropriate; it still needs much more work. There appears to be a fair amount of POV who are trying to interpret the stances made by Joyce, without citations to back them up. I welcome comments and feedbakc; especially where backed up by independent references. Rangasyd ( talk) 13:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
If I can put my head above the trenches, it seems this article has been partially at least plagiarised from an article in last weekends Age. So some one has been naughty. Thus the article has a slick journalistic flavour-not encyclopediacal. Personally I cant see why BJ's wife's ethnicity should be mentioned-let alone the wedding. Further BJ was educated at Riverview (StIgnatius) in Sydney. Please see http://www.riverview.nsw.edu.au/ There is no geographical location called Riverview as such. Thus overall I would support EAWarbuton's editing. I'd fix it myself but I really dont want to suffer the possibility of hostile attack-there seems to be too much bullying going on. So I shall leave it to the experts amongst you. TransylvanianTwist 05:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Hooray- vindication and some sanity-my perverse pleasure would be for Carr and gang refuse to change these mistakes out egotistical pride-they never admit mistakes. Eric A. Warbuton
If Mr Warbuton consults the edit history he will see that I made no change one way or the other to the statement that Joyce "was educated at a boarding school in Riverview." I await his apology. Adam 08:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I still insist that you act in a gang-like manner. A small question: what secondary school did Joyce attend? -Eric A.Warbuton
A gang of one? How clever of me. At least I can spell my own surname. He went to St Ignatius Riverview [2] Adam 09:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)