Talk:Lindsay pamphlet scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article name[edit]

"The Lindsay Affair"? Where on earth does this name come from? mgekelly 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MARK COLVIN: Alright what do you want done about the Lindsay affair?
JULIA GILLARD: Well I think we are still waiting for all of the facts of this matter to come to public light.[1] Timeshift (talk) 14:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the name of the article be altered to [soapboxing removed Andjam (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)] Pauline4eva (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that alternative title to the article per the above --121.209.160.51 (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked to the Lateline page that WILL have the Ruddock interview where he admits that he does not know which 3 Liberal Members were expelled. The ABC has not put the Transcript up as of this morning - but it should be there in a few hours so please if you are checking this link wait a few hours before editing. Thanks --121.209.160.51 (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "The Lindsay Affair" also reveals a controversy to do with someone called John Lindsay. I think something like "Islamic Australia Federation hoax" might be better. Andjam (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't like the latter suggestion - could always distinguish by adding 2007 in brackets if necessary--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 23:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found two Australian Lindsay Affair references - one involves Jackie Kelly back in the 1990s see Hansard (page 128) - the tag didn't catch and was only used once. The other was a ref to a Lord Lindsay Affair[2] - otherwise one gets on to Lindsay Lohan ... and yes I found the one I think you found but not suffieciently notable. What I did find though was http://www.wikirage.com/wiki/The_Lindsay_Affair/ ! Never seen wikirage before --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 00:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll need to find a new name which is also more neutral. The current form doesn't make sense internationally and sounds like it's about a person with surname Lindsay. Orderinchaos 01:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsay pamphlet scandal or 2007 Australian Federal Election pamphlet hoax ?--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 02:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also vote name change. I only got here from a keyword search, and have not heard it referred to as "The Lindsey Affair" once prior. It sounds like somebody's tawdry adultery scandal. I vote for the 2007 Australian Federal Election pamphlet hoax/scandal/whatever. Lenky (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I object to the use of the word "hoax" in the title. From the hoax article:

Unlike a fraud or con (which is usually aimed at a single victim and are made for illicit financial or material gain), a hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke, to cause embarrassment, or to provoke social change by making people aware of something. Many hoaxes are motivated by a desire to satirize or educate by exposing the credulity of the public and the media or the absurdity of the target.

I think calling it a "hoax" is to side with Jackie Kelly's claim that this attempt to deceive voters about her (successor's) opponent was merely a joke. Perhaps "fraud" or "deception" would be better words to use in the title. --Imroy (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, definitely not a hoax. Has to be either Lindsay pamphlet scandal or (if you like long titles) 2007 Australian Federal Election pamphlet scandal. Nick 04:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer 2007 Lindsay pamphlet scandal. Timeshift (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it remained in the agenda for only a day or so, it may have been a hoax. It hasn't blown over. It's a scandal. My bad. I'd be a bit cautious about calling it a fraud (as suggested by Imrow) along the lines of the Protocols of Zion, however. I don't think the publishers were trying to convince people that the pamphlet was really being published by the ALP or the IAF. In my opinion, the intent of the Lindsay 4 was to say that the ALP are a bunch of useful idiots that the terrorists would rather were in government. Andjam (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

Hi could people please use the citation templates, eg 

<ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= 
|url= |work= |publisher= |date= |accessdate= }} </ref>

thanks--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 23:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hilaly[edit]

In Hilaly's wikipedia article, it says "sometimes alternatively spelled Tajeddin Hilaly, Hilali, Al-Hilaly, Taj el-Din al-Hilali, Aldin Alhilali, Tajideen El-Hilaly or Tajeddine". Yet this article says "(misspelled as "Al-Hilaly")". Just because they got very creative with "Ala akba" doesn't mean they got Hilaly's name wrong. (Sometimes I'm frusted at having to search both Hilaly and Hilali in google news, BTW) Andjam (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I changed it to just "spelled". Obviously there's going to be different spellings of his name since it's transliterated from Arabic. --Imroy (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many of the claims are BS?[edit]

I added a list of claims from the pamphlet, but how true or untrue are they? I know the "bali bomber supporters" claim is just verbatim Liberal Party semantic scaremongering after McClelland's speech. But what about the building of mosques and the support of Sheik Taj? The mosque thing could just be fear-mongering (see the Chaser sketch about a proposed mosque being built in Mosman). And I'm not sure how a party would support or oppose the entry a Grand Mufti into the country. Did the libs or anyone else oppose? I don't see why a political party would be involed and bet they had nothing to do with it. The Paul Keating/ASIO claim is more specific though. Any source on that? --Imroy (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, we have to let readers decide whether the pamphlet is "fake but accurate". We can provide them with information on the foreign diplomacy debate, about Hilaly, and info on the mosque, but we can't do the thinking for the reader. We report, you decide. Andjam (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the claims are true, the overall intent was false, ie it was not from who it purported to be and it thus sought to mislead the electorate. The claims are certainly thus out of context.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 06:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of flags and photos[edit]

I just added more of a description of the flags, photos, and logos used in the pamphlet. I wonder if anyone can help me figure out two issues:

  1. The Turkish flag. I'm not sure that whoever made this pamphlet meant to target Turkish Australians, simply that the flag uses two prominent symbols of Islam. If anything, it's the Lebanese that are usually vilified in the media, but I guess the star and crescent are more recognised (and more menacing to some) than the cedar tree.
  2. The "It Is NOT OK To Bash Muslims" sign. Is this perhaps a photo from after the Cronulla riots? I didn't recognise it, and the quality is pretty poor.

Anyone? --Imroy (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image added, no longer needs a graphic intricate description. Timeshift (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color of flyer[edit]

I thought the flyer is blue, or are some in black and white? F (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be in the bali bombings' see also?[edit]

I disagree with this revert. Thoughts people? Timeshift (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to remove the link myself when someone else did it. Linking from the attack to every mention of the attack would lead to a list as long as your arm, IMO. Then again, I guess opinions differ. Andjam (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this an article?[edit]

Surely merge this with the Australian election article It is not worthy of its own article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.184.43 (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a significant event during the election campaign that possibly influenced the result of the vote in an electorate. Also, it's still possible the perpetrators were guilty of a crime. It's certainly worthy of its own article. --BrianFG (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This most certainly deserves an article. It deserves a book, for that matter. And I daresay one of the victors (obviously not you, unknownIP) will write it. This scandal simply has too many noteworthy facts to be squeezed into the main campaign article. Colonel Tom 13:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why not? --Kizor (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because we say so. Timeshift (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better article name?[edit]

"2007 Australian Federal Election pamphlet scandal" is a little boring. I'd suggest Islamic Australia Federation pamphlet scandal, but that's verging a little too close to wikiality. Any alternatives? Andjam (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 pamphlet scandal? Which one (possibly)? Andjam (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lindsay pamphlet scandal or 2007 Lindsay pamphlet scandal is probably the clearest we're going to get. Rebecca (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authorising statement[edit]

Is there a bit of to-and-fro about whether the pamphlet had authorisation? [3] has "and no Liberal Party authorisation" (which doesn't mean no authorisation), and Jeff Eagan has the somewhat double-edged statement that "I categorically deny distributing any material that was not authorised in accordance with the Electoral Act,". Andjam (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linked to an extremist organisation[edit]

The text currently says "a flyer linking Folley's party with an extremist Islamic organisation". If the IAF endorsing the ALP indicates a "link", would this mean that Rudd is linked to Hilaly because the latter endorsed Rudd? Or are there differences (such as use of the ALP logo)? (Then again, I questioned whether opposing the execution of Bali bombers is the same as supporting terrorists, and got proved wrong) Andjam (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the use of the (old) ALP logo on the document would have suggested to readers that the two were linked, even if they weren't. --BrianFG (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of italics[edit]

There are italics being used for

"and the Liberals' claim that this policy supports the Bali bombers"

I can sense the exasperation, but is it suitable for an encyclopedia to express exasperation? Andjam (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro needs to cut to the chase (so to speak)[edit]

I think the intro could cut to the chase quicker. I want to know in the first sentence what happened (ie, fake pamphlets were distributed), followed by who did it. Then a summary of the consequences. I don't want to know that "Jackie Kelly was forced to deny..." before knowing what the incident was. Thanks, Lester 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just made the change in this revision.Lester 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edit - title is not fictitious![edit]

Read the very top of this page, there is a link. 'Lindsay pamphlet scandal' is not some ad-hoc made-up title by wikipedians. Timeshift (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Are you somehow referring to the edit I just made? --Imroy (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would actually pay for me to review edits instead of jumping to conclusions sometimes. Timeshift (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That applies to all of us, make an effort to keep it in mind and you'll do fine. --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 07:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police investigation[edit]

Anyone know what's happening with this? Timeshift (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5 people have been charged with offences.Lester 12:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates - see articles[edit]

Article one - Article two - anyone want to add to the article? Timeshift (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washminster style phrase[edit]

"The scandal disrupted the election campaign of Prime Minister John Howard."

Is this meant to suggest that it disrupted Howard's attempt to remain the member for Bennelong, the Coalition's attempt to retain a majority in the House of Representatives, or something else? Andjam (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to know how exactly to word that one! It is a tough one. The fact Howard was all over the TV making painful-looking statements suggests it may have impacted on him personally. In reality it probably had no further reach than Lindsay itself and would simply have confirmed everyone else's existing sentiments on the Government, thus not have changed many votes. But that's my own original research and I'd much rather cite a source. A recent article about Chijoff (18th Jan I think, cited in article) mentions the reach as being Western Sydney, so "the Liberal election campaign in Western Sydney electorates" with that as a source may be the best option. Orderinchaos 12:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a complete aside - new ABC article. Orderinchaos 13:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Western Sydney was the heartland that both parties fought for, where Howard's 'battlers' are, who brought him to power in 1996, and before 1996 they were apparently Labor voters. If it affected Western Sydney, then it affected the whole election outcome.Lester 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit I never understood about that whole "Howard's battlers" thing and the focus on Western Sydney is that most of the seats in question did stay with Labor, the only exceptions being Parramatta (which went to Labor in 04), Lindsay and in the end Greenway (which all have decidedly non-battler components). Orderinchaos 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot thickens[edit]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/24/2197310.htm Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Conviction[edit]

I see Chijoff has now earned himself a criminal record (conviction).(http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/chijoff-fined-over-extremist-scare/2008/05/07/1210131046871.html SMH)Lester 07:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, careful how one uses the word "criminal record" - I'm not sure how breaches of the Electoral Act are classified. Generally criminal records relate to breaches of the Crimes Act or Criminal Code in various states. Orderinchaos 08:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a gap on the aftermath?[edit]

Jackie Kelly's husband guilty of fake leaflets 29/4/2009 - I thought this was long over? Are there parts in between that we haven't documented in this article? Timeshift (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just takes forever for things to go through the court process. Orderinchaos 08:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lindsay pamphlet scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lindsay pamphlet scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lindsay pamphlet scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lindsay pamphlet scandal. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindsay_pamphlet_scandal&oldid=1198817261"