Talk:Andrew Probyn

Political views section
The section Political Views is disputed and should be removed for the following reasons:

- the views ascribed to Andrew Probyn (AP) are the views of the Wikipedia editor;

- the section is based on quotes AP made about Tony Abbott & Malcolm Turnbull - no one else is mentioned (i.e. the section has a pro-Abbott & an anti-Probyn agenda);

- quoting single words & phrases is not sufficient to validate AP's "political views";

- the section was added after Tony Abbott broke his promise to not cut Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) funding & was added at a time when Liberal Party members voted to privatise ABC (i.e. political ; &

- follows pro-government political interference by the former ABC chairman who resigned as a consequence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.118.153 (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The section is factual and the comments made by Probyn are not ambiguous. The assessment of the above single issue anonymous editor of how factual reporting of events on wikipedia may or may not assist an external political agenda is not relevant to whether or not the reporting should remain on wikipedia. However, you raise the significant further point about "bias" allegations against Probyn involving the former ABC Chairman. This topic needs to be included in the article too. Observoz (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the section is not factual. On the contrary, it is politically partisan & hopelessly biased, & it is therefore misleading as well as being a clear & unacceptable breach of Wikipedia's policies on 'Biographies of living persons' (WP:BLP) & 'Neutral Point of View' (WP:NPOV). The unfortunate bias has resulted from the selective and inappropriate 'cherry picking' (WP:CHERRYPICK) of factoids, amounting to a breach of Wikipedia's policy on 'original research' (WP:OR). There has been no attempt to create appropriate balance (WP:WEIGHT) in the section by including Probyn's analysis/critiques of the Federal Opposition, its leaders/members, or any other political parties, lobbys & players; hence the partisan result. This paints Probyn as personally biased and unprofessional. These type of aspersions against his work and character border on the defamatory. We now have the ludicrous situation where this partisan section constitutes about half of this article that is otherwise little better than a stub. Hopefully, the future efforts of editors will go into improving the core of the article and not into any further ad hominem smears against the article's subject. For all these reasons, the POV template must remain until this section is purged of its bias, or is deleted. 203.219.163.187 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Your complaint seems to be directed at the verbatim quotes which give his defining assessments of recent governments. It is therefore spurious to claim that the views "the views ascribed to Andrew Probyn (AP) are the views of the Wikipedia editor". Be careful too in saying that these quotes evidence "unprofessional" or "biased" reporting, as you may stray toward the defamatory, given that they are the considered opinions Probyn has expressed in national broadcasts. As the article grows, of course similar assessments will be picked up by wikipedians about future Labor/Greens governments, however Probyn did not have his current profile during past Labor governments, so these will be harder to find. Cheers, Observoz (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020
Andrew probyn does not in fact run the press conference a sentiment shared by Scott Morrison. Most Australians believe Catherine should be allowed to answer a question. Edog12478 (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 23:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What edog wishes to change in the article is correct as Andrew does not in fact run the press conference. HappyLilVegemite (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Which is never asserted in the article, memelord. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021
Probyn's integrity as a journalist has come under questions as a result of his unsupported claim that Scott Morrison was completely unaware of the gender wage gap. The claim was palpably absurd and demonstrably false. Probyn was widely mocked on social media for making the claim and was even pilloried by progressive journalists who are known to be antagonistic toward the Prime Minister. Zizek Rocks (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: References don't source the additions you want to make. news.com doesn't say the claim was absurd or false, twitter is irrelevant. 15 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)