Talk:Adam Bandt

Edit request from Kajute, 6 September 2010
In info box for Adam it has him listed as divorced. This in not correct - he lives with his partner (unmarried).

I cannot find a source, but I also see that it has no source currently either.

If you could please list him as "Lives with partner" that would be greatly appreciated.

Kajute (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I removed the spouses line altogether seeing that no sources can be found regarding his marital status. If sources can be found, the marital status will be placed back up. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * , - these both mention his divorce.  Reliable sources? Not sure.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several references about Bandt's partner, Claudia Perkins, in The Australian and The Age (which also says they are moving to Flemington from Parkville). Can't find anything about a divorce yet though. --Canley (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Wording
From 1987 to 1989, he was a member of the Labor Party, from whom he subsequently won his seat in Parliament.
 * Can we say this in a slightly different way if possible? It reads as if the seat was the ALP's property or something.  One can win a seat in parliament, and one can even be said to defeat a party ("he beat the ALP to win Melbourne" or "he won the seat of Melbourne, defeating the ALP"), but do we ever say one wins a seat from a party?  Journos talk about someone "wresting a seat" from the current holder.  In any case, parties are not humans (despite being composed of humans), so it'd be "from which".  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * it's unnecessary decoration so I'm happy to cut it entirely. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

15 year old email [& Quardrant blog as sources]
Yes yr right that the random email needs to be mentioned in a reliable primary before we can mention it. However weblogs don't qualify as reliable sources & especially not one from an inherently questionable source such as Quadrant.--Misarxist 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To put this in context as it is only a single sentence this dispute is that states:

He also declared that "It is futile to try and resurrect some kind of social democratic project" and that he was advocating "Towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement".

with direct quotes that come from a UVA archive of Marxist mailing lists and support from a magazine that has been published on politics in Australia for over 50 years.

The primary source, whose veracity you implicitly assert by accepting the date on the archive meets the wikipedia policy guidelines on primary sources that state:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

This is clearly trivial to do in this case.

Quadrant is used as a source in other places on wikipedia so it is accepted. Please provide evidence that wikipedia regards direct quotes with sources from Quadrant as unreliable. Also as the primary source on which it relies is so easily available and is so clear it further strengthens the case.

Is there any dispute as to the factual accuracy of the quote? Is it disputed that Mr Bandt wrote these words?

59.167.188.130 (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Sien
 * What evidence do we have that these purported archives are reliable sources? Past that: if you read the actual post, as opposed to the Quadrant coverage, you will see that these statements were framed as hypotheses. And no, I see no reason to consider Quadrant a reliable source for much of anything about people anywhere to the left of Jack van Tongeren, or at best Stan Zemanek or Brian Wilshire, given their ideological biases. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Presumably all references made to Quadrant should be removed form wikipedia. Mother Jones is also, on occasion and legitimately, used a reference which is a similarly politically slanted magazine, should that be removed as well? Also are you suggesting that the material in the archives is fake? It's a vast archive with lots of material with email addresses of people who all appear to exist and whose accuracy you also happily accept in your second point. In addition the material is also referenced and quoted from reference 4 in the article from The Australian. Adam Bandt's response to the announcement that he said these things also includes no statement that he denies making them which is also surely a confirmation that they are what he said. Is Australia's top selling National Newspaper also not a reliable source and if not should all references that use the Australian be removed from wikipedia? Your interpretation that Bandt is also merely just suggesting the idea and not advocating the position he outlines is also contestable. It appears to be clear that he thinks this is a wise course of action. Surely a reference to the source would allow readers to answer this question for themselves. Could the quote, which is in reference 4 from the Australian be included as well as a direct reference material to the sourced. This compromise would surely be a good way to present this information with an NPOV.

Would the sentence:

At that time he has been quoted as calling the Greens a "bourgeois" party and he also signed off the email as "towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement".

Be acceptable, with a reference to the source material?

Sien (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Sien.


 * Ok it's in The Oz too which's obviously fine as a reliable secondary source, so we don't need either Quadrant or the archive. As it's already there the "bourgeois" quote is a good example of what we can include because it's been mentioned by the Australian. It also more directly makes the point that his politics have changed and in such a way that is directly relevant to his current politics ie his party. I don't think we need a repetition of the same point in a more rhetorical manner (see WP:UNDUE) such as the tagline from the email the Oz quotes.--Misarxist 08:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Adam Bandt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080202183648/http://www.abc.net.au:80/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s831469.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s831469.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110315110400/http://mcv.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/features/will-adam-be-the-first-greens-man-007667.html to http://mcv.gaynewsnetwork.com.au/features/will-adam-be-the-first-greens-man-007667.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Adam Bandt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090217161403/http://www.makemelbournegreen.com:80/council-elections-2008/adam-bandt/ to http://www.makemelbournegreen.com/council-elections-2008/adam-bandt/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

PhD
The article currently says Bandt gained a "PhD in law and politics". But his supervisor was Andrew Milner, who at that point was part of the Centre for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies at Monash. The phrase "PhD in law and politics" seems to have thought up based on the description of the thesis. I can see no source which says this, and the Monash University library catalogue states the PhD was completed within the Centre for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies. Milner has a B.Sc (Econ) degree, with honours in Sociology, in 1972 and a Ph.D. in the Sociology of Literature in 1977, but he doesn't seem to have any qualifications in law. He doesn't seem at all qualified to supervise a thesis in law. However, Bandt's thesis is about the Marxist theory of the law. A PhD in the sociology of law is clearly different from a PhD in law. Since PhDs are defined by the discipline (e.g., a PhD in mathematics etc), perhaps we should leave the discipline out, because it's not clear what it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed "law and politics" and described Milner as a "cultural theorist".--Jack Upland (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Joining the Greens

 * In the mid-2000s, Bandt joined the Greens, largely due to the issue of climate change. He handed out how-to-vote cards for the party for several years before the preselection of his own candidacy.

I have removed this from the article. Firstly, what does "mid-2000s" mean? Around 2050? This is what Bandt said, and I guess it really implies around 2005. But I don't think we should put sloppy phrasing like this into the article. Bandt knows when he joined the Greens. Until we know the date there is no point in including a vague statement like that. The phrase "largely due to the issue of climate change" is also vague. The claim that he handed out how-to-vote cards is trivial and also vague. You can hand out leaflets without being a member of the party. We know he joined the Greens before standing for election in 2007, but that's it, and this paragraph adds nothing.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Jack Upland The cited ‘The Monthly’ article has “...he decided to join the party in 2004.” It doesn’t state definitively that he joined the party in that year, but the phrasing infers that. Boscaswell   talk  10:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading section titles
When I see the section title ‘Early life’ or ‘Early life and education’ in a BLP I know it’s normally heading up a section that usually only contains info about the family that the subject was born into and which school/s and college/uni s/he attended. In this case, the *majority* of the section is about Bandt’s political activities before he began his career in law. It’s not wrong to include the info that’s there, either - Bandt was clearly very serious about these activities. But it is misleading to have them stuffed into the section headed ‘Early life and education’. My edit adding ‘and politics’ has been reverted, described as ‘confusing’. That may be, but it is not wrong.

What is very confusing IMO is the next section title, ‘Pre-political career’. In which there is a good deal more political stuff. It was far from being an unpolitical “pre-political’ career.

We then have the ‘Political career’ section. That title is also misleading, seriously so, as there is an implication that all his political activity is in that section.

I suggest that all his political activity be coalesced into one section, leaving the birth family, bare bones of education (which school, uni) and legal career in another. Maybe there’s another solution? Anything, please, but how it is now. Boscaswell  talk  11:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I have fixed this by replacing "political" with "parliamentary". I don't think his political activities at high school or university should be taken out of the "education" section.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * that’s a great change, ! The only thing is, it doesn’t solve the problem that is the (IMO) misnaming of the first of the three sections which have political activities in them. The current title, ‘Early life and education’, is a very good description of the first para therein. But it doesn’t describe what makes up most of the section’s contents, which are about early political activity.  So I’m separating them out into their own section titled just that. This seems to me to be very apposite. Boscaswell   talk  03:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I really don't see the need.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * But now none of those section titles are misleading. Each to their own...    Boscaswell   talk  23:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * They're not misleading, but we have two sections which both deal with his time at school and uni.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)