Talk:David Flint



Untitled
Please read these before editing this article: Dealing with articles about yourself Dealing with edits by the subject of the article 

Allegation that Flint is openly gay
The reference for this information is not "very wonky". The original source, as I stated, was a Sydney Morning Herald Good Weekend magazine article by Jane Cadzow, a respected, prize-winning journalist. I read the article in Good Weekend myself when it originally came out. The only source I can find on the web is on Rodney Croome's website. Rodney Croome is a Member of the Order of Australia (2003) who has fought long and hard for gay rights in Tasmania. He even has his own Wikipedia entry! Of course, newspapers are archived in libraries as a permanent resource, so there is no reason not to cite this information. AussieBoy 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This information was removed again by "Beaconsfield" (possible sockpuppet of "Prof flint"?) with the edit summary "Removed unnecessary comment". This is not a good reason for removal of this notable information about Professor Flint, which has an appropriate reference. AussieBoy 09:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Beaconsfield", a probable sockpuppet of "Prof flint", who refuses to engage in reasoned discussion, has again been vandalising this article with the offhand comment that this material is "irrelevant". The fact that Professor Flint is openly gay is supported by a cited interview with Professor Flint himself and is in no way "unnecessary" or "irrelevant" in a Wikipedia article on the man (especially in view of the Alan Jones connection). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AussieBoy (talk • contribs) 11:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Maybe we should say "gay" rather than "openly gay". It seems it's not a secret, but I don't think he's especially loud about it.  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

1. "Openly gay" is clearly false. 2. It is seriously wrong to call those edits "vandalism". 3. Editors here need to carefully read WP:BLP. 4. Editors here need to carefully read WP:BLP. 5. I for one do not trust the version of the Cadzow article we have been linking to. 6. I have reorganised the article, added a good cite I found here, added a bibliography with ISBNs and removed multiple WP:BLP violations. CWC 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

POV material
There seems to be an influx of some good new material into this article, as well as some rather POV changes. These changes have been made by a user who has chosen the name "Prof flint". I will try to ameliorate some of this. AussieBoy 11:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Further POV reversions/changes by "Beaconsfield" (possible sockpuppet of "Prof flint"?). A number of letters (not just one) were involved in the controversy, and the timeframe has been deliberately distorted. I have corrected this aspect and added an appropriate reference establishing the facts. If this is changed again without discussion and appropriate references, I will consider it vandalism. I will correct other aspects over time (unless someone else wants to). AussieBoy 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Chris Chittleborough
The following comments were left on my Talk page (AussieBoy):

In this edit, you managed to make several serious mistakes. I get the impression you have taken upon yourself the role of Gatekeeper for David Flint. If so, you are violating several of Wikipedia's fundamental tenets — and belying your own claim to be an adult. CWC 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Please do not refer to good-faith edits, however wrong, as "vandalism". This is vandalism. None of user:Beaconsfield's edits are even close. See WP:VANDAL.
 * 2) Please do not bite the newcomers such as Beaconsfield.
 * 3) Please do not speculate on the real-world identity of good-faith editors.
 * 4) Please do not call anyone a sockpuppet without also producing convincing evidence. (Tenuous historical associations do not count.)
 * 5) Please do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia.
 * 6) If you think an edit to a biographical article was made by the subject of that article, do not blindly revert it. See WP:BLP.
 * 7) Please note that http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/other_more?id=605_0_2_0_M is not in itself acceptable as a source, per Convenience links.


 * In the edit referred to, I did not make any mistakes, let alone serious ones. I altered "letter" back to "letters" as that is what is supported by all available references. User(s) Beaconsfield/Prof Flint have changed this from "letters" to "letter", but have offered no evidence to back this up. Such a repeated change in the face of the evidence does count as vandalism, in my opinion. The evidence also indicates that some of the letters were written quite close to the time of the ABA enquiry, whereas Beaconsfield/Prof Flint have attempted to make it appear that there was only one letter, several years before the enquiry. If anything, this has not been corrected sufficiently. I also removed the claim that Flint "is known to be a prolific letter writer". This is rather POV in this context and would need a reference.


 * I do think it very likely that user "Beaconsfield" is a sockpuppet of "Prof Flint". Both have concerned themselves essentially only with David Flint and Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, both have a similar tone and make the same kind of changes. Neither has a user page, and neither actually engages with other editors. The fact that Benjamin Disraeli (Lord Beaconsfield) was an outsider who became a noted monarchist, like David Flint, is just one more indication that user "Beaconsfield" may be a sockpuppet of "Prof Flint". This kind of sockpuppetry (if that is what it is) would be in breach of Wikipedia policy. I note that I have not speculated on the real world identities of users "Beaconsfield"/"Prof Flint".


 * Chris Chittleborough, please do not make any further ad hominem and incivil attacks on me. Also, please do not edit my previous comments on the Talk page (adding "False" before the heading "Allegation that Flint is openly gay". This is in breach of Wikipedia policy.). Just arguing points rationally here on the appropriate Talk page is all we should be doing.
 * AussieBoy 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Responses: Cheers, CWC 11:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, Letters (plural) is correct, per sources.
 * 1) I apologize. I misread AussieBoy's comments as saying user:Beaconsfield is the real Prof. Flint, rather than a sockpuppet of user:Prof flint. Sorry.
 * No, those edits are not vandalism (see WP:VANDAL) and calling them vandalism is a Bad Thing.
 * 1) Please do not revert edits just because you think the editor is a sockpuppet. Even sockpuppets are right sometimes ;-].
 * 2) Please do treat newer editors gently and please be extra-careful with edits that appear to be by the subjects of articles or close associates.
 * 3) My question to AussieBoy about gatekeeping was genuine. The crack about "adult" relates to his user page.
 * 4) Whatever Prof Flint is or isn't, "openly gay" is wrong.
 * 5) Anyone reading Miranda Devine's "Laws vs Jones" article, which we use as a source, will learn a lot more than a Wikipedia article can say.


 * Thank you for that. My responses to some of your responses:
 * 3. The edit of "letters" to "letter" does not readily fall into the category of "unintentional misinformation" ("What vandalism is not") since it has been done repeatedly in the face of the cited evidence, and without any debate. The list of categories of vandalism listed at WP:VANDAL is not meant to be exhaustive (note the use of "may"). I think it very tenable that this is indeed vandalism. In any case, it needs to be corrected.
 * 4. I did not revert any edits because I thought the editor was a sockpuppet and there is no evidence that I did. It is, however, quite legitimate to point out probable sockpuppetry, especially where it would be in breach of Wikipedia policy (as in this case).
 * 5. I do not accept either of these points. Any scrutiny of the evidence shows that I have treated these editors gently. And it is clearly you (not me) who has been speculating on the real-world identity of User(s) Beaconsfield/Prof Flint. I find it hard to accept that there is any evidence that these are "good faith editors".
 * 6 You did not ask me a "question" about "gatekeeping". You simply stated "I get the impression you have taken upon yourself the role of Gatekeeper for David Flint". This may be "genuine", but it is still a baseless attack on me. Yes, I got it, your "crack" about "adult" ("belying your own claim to be an adult") does refer to my user page. So what? It is still just an ad hominem attack.
 * 7. In the face of the evidence in the Jane Cadzow article (and other sources that could be cited), it is a very tenable position that David Flint is openly gay. I quote from the article: "Forthcoming about everything else, he is silent about the person at the centre of his life. As a young man, he was open about his homosexuality. "I have never denied it. I've never hidden it," he says evenly. It's just that these days, "I don't talk about it". Or should the article say that he "was" openly gay, but now doesn't talk about it? Cheers. AussieBoy 07:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

convenience links
I've edited the article to use Jane Cadzow's article as a reference, but without any link to http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/other_more?id=605_0_2_0_M. Why? Because WP:COPY forbids that. (See also Convenience links. Wikiwonks like me will note that WP:COPY is policy, but WP:CONV is just an essay.)

Links to copies of whole articles are only OK if you can demonstrate the copyright owner has licenced the copy. (Links to extracts count as fair use.) If anyone can show that Rodney Croome has permission to put that copy online, then obviously we'll restore the link. Cheers, CWC 08:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit by subject of the article
I think it's interesting that the article uses the unusual turn of phrase "for long" ("and was for long a board member..."). This caught my eye just now, as I was looking up the article having just started reading Flint's Twilight of the Elites. It also uses the phrase ("For long, civilised society has been based on..."). I know it's not against the rules to edit an article about oneself, but I just thought this was interesting.--Russell E (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)