Talk:Gordon Moyes

Untitled
This page reads like it was written by a staffer! (But it doesn't appear to have been lifted from his website holus bolus.) It has good info, just needs a bit of cleaning up E.g. "household name" is a gross exaggeration; the quote from Howard is not particularly relevent given that Moyes is in State parliament (and I'm sure negative quotes abound!); "life issues" could be more neutral; "spearheaded reform agendas" is probably an exaggeration.

Where is your evidence that Moyes is not entitled to the "household name" label? I think his autobiography qualifies him for this title. He hosted a national television program for many years on a commercial network and hosted a talkback radio program on commercial radio for many years as well. On a weekly basis Moyes was invited into many homes across the nation. These activities, together with all his other achievements, surely make him a "household name".

Moyes worked with Prime Minister John Howard for many years as an advisor on topics relating to his work as Superintendent of Wesley Mission, Australia's largest church. Upon his retirement Howard paid tribute to Moyes. As Prime Minister I think the quote is very relevant.

Reform? Well Howard has said "I particularly appreciated his (Moyes) particiaption in my Youth Homeless Taskforce, where his expertise and experience were integral to the successful outcomes of the Taskforce".

I shall start changing the gross PoV. Would appreciate some help on any minor PoV I miss. Nick 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

NSW State Election 2007?
Could I ask what Moyes' status is, following the recent NSW state election? Calibanu 10.24, 30 March 2007


 * Only half the Legislative Council comes up for election every four years, as members serve eight-year terms. Moyes was thus not up for election this time - he will face the polls again in 2011. Fred Nile was the CDP member facing re-election this year. Rebecca 02:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Rebecca. I have accordingly amended Moyes page to reflect that information, as well as that of the CDP. Calibanu 12.22, 01 April 2007{{subst:image source|Image:2003Moyes.jpg))

This page does require some vigilance, as it looks like there may be a Nile/Moyes supporter 'edit war' going on. I shall endeavour to amend any such additions to NPOV Calibanu (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Betacommand {{sup|(talk • contribs • Bot)}} 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC) {{missing rationale|Image:2003Moyes.jpg

Timeshift Deletions
What is your rationale for deleting all the information you have? Given the lack of any objective justification I must assume your changes are personally / politically motivated and thus vandalism. If you have proof that material is false, please provide it. Please do not just delete sections without reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curleighandmowe (talk • contribs) 02:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What you've added tries to argue a point, and with no valid citation. I've been here 3 years with tens of thousands of edits, you're new and have only contributed to Moyes and Nile. Only one of us would have a conflict of interest. I don't need to provide proof that material is false, the onus is on the contributor. Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how you believe this to work, does 3 years and tens of thousands of edits enable one to ignore "proof"? You keep claiming POV in arguing a point, what point is being argued? I have to wonder if you have acutally read the supporting cites or whether you are just acting on your own preconceived POV. I have only endeavour to post facts, facts supported with cites.

These are the so-called “POV” you have removed:


 * Removed “CDP” in heading ‘Conflict with Fred Nile and CDP’, despite it being explicitly stated under that heading and supported with cites.


 * Changed Moyes ‘expulsion’ to a ‘departure’, despite being explicitly stated in the article and supported with cites.


 * Changed Moyes claim in comments made Sept 24th 2009, despite suporting cite. Moyes claimed that Nile was assisting in a corruption cover up.


 * Regarding retirement, re-introduced comments regarding Nile’s age, despite the point being made previously. Why labour the point?


 * Removed the whole section dealing with Moyes new affiliation with Family First, his initial contact and final acceptence notice given in NSW Parliament, again with supporting cites.

How do you justify removing all this information?

Curleighandmowe (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The entire contribution is full of POV. Your points are irrelevant to this issue. Timeshift (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Curleighandmowe, as it says at the top when you click "edit" on the page, Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy applies to all contributions to this article. It appears that your main purpose in being on Wikipedia, from the first edit to the last, is to mount a case against Moyes from Nile's perspective. If you have a conflict of interest, it would be best to declare it openly, and if you are too close to the topic (e.g. ), it is probably best to place your ideas here and let neutral editors take care of any content issues so that the page can ultimately reflect a neutral point of view. The points you have criticised the removal of, by the way, had not been present in the article until introduced by yourself, from my reading of the history of the page. Merely having "cites" is not a good basis on which to mount an attack.
 * In the meantime, I have protected the page so that discussion can proceed here as to how to move forward. Orderinchaos 00:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Orderinchaos. I assure you there is no axe to grind here except with Timeshift and the elitist ability to determine truth from error due to "3 years with tens of thousands of edits". It is true that I am relatively new to the wiki experience and may make some minor editorial errors from time to time, but that in itself should not disqualify me from objective rational contribution. I am not a member of any of the aforementioned parties, factions, etc

In Australia all the information posted is common public knowledge that has made regular headlines in local Sydney papers. I have gone to great lengths to ensure the information is neutral and welcome any suggestions to make it more so. Just deleting information because one believes it is not positive enough is not the way to go here. I acknowledge that some of the information is not flattering to the subject but that information was either stated directly by the subject publicly or by public media. It is not I making an attack, the only argument is made by the subject. If it was my intent to malign, I would have posted much of the vindictive commentary by the subject’s detractors. Contrary to assertions and accusations here, on one occasion my edit is actually beneficial to the subject, it was Timeshift that wanted to restate a negative comment the subject made about Nile. As I stated, why repeat the point, it was previously addressed adequately. Why remove the subject announcing his standing for a new party?

Now Timeshift and others may like to pretend events were different to that actually publicly witnessed, but I believe that will only undermine the quality and utility of wiki. curleighandmowe 01:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone is welcome to review each and every contribution made at history. And the reason I pointed out my years and edits compared to yours was regarding your "changes are personally / politically motivated and thus vandalism" comment toward me in your very initial post. Timeshift (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Then I apologies if I have wrongly pre-empted your motivations. As stated, I'm a wiki newbie and may have jumped to conclusions when witnessing what I regarded as unsubstantiated deletions. Please revisit my last post, what points exactly do you have isssue with? Can you suggest a work around? curleighandmowe 05:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. As the article stands, the POV has been removed. Your contributions you are arguing for put the issue in a POV light favouring Nile. Timeshift (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with you here. Which of the above / aforementioned points argue for a POV favouring Nile? curleighandmowe 07:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your entire contribution is POV-slanted and the above points make no attempt to fix this. My aim was to stop you from adding POV-slanted contribs to Moyes' page, the page has now been protected, so until I see the POV-slanted material back on the page, I really can't be bothered continuing this discussion, akin to banging my head against a brick wall. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My “entire contribution”!? Come on ... I've offered to work with you here!

So you are just going to keep deleting data you don't like and justify your actions with a POV claim without actually saying which points you believe to be POV and why? It was that attitude that led to questions regarding your motivations in the first place. You stated that you deleted all the information because it "argue a point / with no valid citation". When I pointed out that there were citations provided that you had obviously not read, you dropped that line of reasoning and maintained your POV claim ... but refuse to ellaborate any further or offer any suggestions on how things may be improved. You claim that somehow I’m “arguing for put the issue in a POV light favouring Nile” yet I haven’t posted any of the derogatory comments or response by Nile. Almost all personal cites are made by Moyes himself in justification of the decisions and actions he has made. I thought that to be critical to a factual account of events to be reported by a source such as wiki. As mentioned, on one account I would argue that you have actually posted in favour of Nile yourself by restating the age issue already previously mentioned in the article. It’s just bad journalism.

I have to say I’m disappointed that your not willing to work together on this. It is becoming increasingly obvious you have taken issue with the content itself, not any alleged POV violation.

Regarding your so-called POV claim. One must be very careful in deferring to POV as a defence for data manipulation. Any factual information / accounts posted in wiki may be distorted, change or removed by individuals to suit their own POV whilst claiming they did so in response to another's POV violation. For example (and without any inference to the subject) take Holocaust deniers. They could look up Hitler here in wiki and claim contributors have posted POV-slanted arguments:

"Nazi forces committed numerous atrocities during the war, including the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians, an estimated six million of whom were Jews targeted in a genocide known as the Holocaust".

"At the beginning of the Great War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas . . . then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain. " (Mein Kampf: Adolf Hitler)

...and remove this and like information. What wiki patrons are left with is a distorted and sanitised / "politically correct" account that has little value to readers.

What I endeavoured to achieve here is to post a factual account of events that adhere to wiki’s terms on living biographies, ie content that is NPOV, verifiability and not original. There is a great deal of public information I have deliberately omitted that would have violated those terms. In the end, I hope reason prevails and there is some means of moving forward so that wiki is able to provide factual information to the public, however unsavoury some believe that information may be. I guess we will speak again in December curleighandmowe 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And i'm going to be blatantly honest. I read a few lines, and realised that from now on it's best to ignore you and simply keep an eye on this page. Timeshift (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Timeshift, I have an alternate concern: somewhere down the line, information about Moyes' actual parliamentary record and 27 years in social work has been removed, and the only the only thing on this site is about a political stoush with Nile. Assuming that I should not edit the page, can you please resurrect some of the lost information? --Leadryl (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, because it is not my responsibility to fix other people's contributions. Anyone is free to make a contribution so long as it meets wikipedia guidelines. The edits removed were nothing even remotely close, therefore they were removed. Please feel more than welcome to restore lost information keeping in mind such policies as (not an exhaustive list) WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:RS. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think overall the article is poorly written and does not inform readers well. There is more to Gordon Moyes than his conflict with Nile. Whoever wrote it needs to ask himself/herself if they are really helping others and if writing articles here is what they should be doing.I suggest they read Gordon's autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.175.199 (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's wikipedia, no one person wrote it. Timeshift (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clean up, improved categorisation, and some facts n references added - deleted by Timeshift. Timeshift, do you have a problem with me personally? If so please is explain why? If not, and you have a problem with the data, again .. please explain why? Unless you explain your actions, I'll have to assume this is just vandalism... and we'll be doing this a very very long time.curleighandmowe) 00:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Protection
This article is protected, but there's no padlock icon. Could an admin add it please? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
D.D. LL.D? Has Gordon Moyes earned any research doctorates or are they honorary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.105.162 (talk • contribs)
 * Neither claim to honours is in the article so I don't understand the point being made. Orderinchaos 09:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Death
Came here after hearing of Moyes death. The whole page may need a look over by someone familiar with the religious and political side of Moyes' life. Back in March 2011 three edits by someone with an apparent COI did this to the page, I have restored the categories, and lead text, amended as necessary. The restored refs I have added to the body text. 220  of  Borg 08:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gordon Moyes. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314214201/https://parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/ArchivesLegislativeCouncilPresidentsoftheLegislativeCouncil to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/ArchivesLegislativeCouncilPresidentsoftheLegislativeCouncil
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525033844/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20070508006 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20070508006
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213191931/http://www.cdp.org.au/download/Gordon_Moyes_Letter.pdf to http://www.cdp.org.au/download/Gordon_Moyes_Letter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)