Talk:Jim Longley

Questionable POV
The recent addition of a paragraph about Mona Vale TAFE by anonymous user at 220.239.99.176 contains no citation and implies motives ("failed to listen") that probably go beyond the facts. I suggest this should be either re-written more neutrally or removed. Matthew C. Clarke 01:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since no-one has proposed any improvement since I posted the above message a year ago, I removed the para on 16 June. Matthew C. Clarke  04:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Intention to revise
Given the recent additions of negative material either uncited or citing no more than Tabloid journalism, I signal an intention to revise this article. The revision will bring this article into line with Wikipedia guidelines for biographies.

Since I know Mr Longley personally, I shall be asking other respected editors to be involved with this process.

I request that editors who wish any of the negative comments to remain, discuss the relevance and factuality of the claims on this Talk page first. They should probably also note any potential conflict of interest on this page as per the Conflict of interest guidelines. – Matthew C. Clarke 12:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mcclarke that there are definite Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy issues here. These are the sort of issues which should be dealt with immediately so as to do no harm, so I have gone ahead and neutralized the coverage without discussion.  Some notes:
 * There's really just the one source reporting this, the Sydney Morning Herald. Additional unconnected sources could help give additional perspectives for balanced coverage.
 * WP:WELLKNOWN says that to be included in an article, allegations must be noteworthy, relevant and well-documented (i.e.: reported by multiple reliable sources). With only one source, there is a strong case for removing it altogether, as a single source suggests that it isn't that notable and hasn't been widely reported.
 * The subject hasn't been accused of a crime, and according to the source there's no evidence that a crime was committed.
 * We can't say that they're "alleged" of anything in Wikipedia's voice. What we can do is say that "source X alleges..." but there's nothing like that in the SMH source.
 * It was completely improper and out of balance to start the lead with "is an allegedly corrupt...". I'm not sure that this belongs in the lead at all.
 * After neutralizing the language I didn't feel it was too negative and left it in. However, I would support any editor who feels otherwise and decides to remove it completely without discussion.  BLP policy is among the strictest on Wikipedia, and we can't play fast and loose with a person's reputation. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed the lengthy irrelevant puff quote that ended the article. I'm not sure the allegations need to be removed completely, but I would definitely support them being trimmed back (to 1-2 sentences), and taken out of their own sub-heading. Frickeg (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both and  for those comments and changes. We can await further discussion before other changes. I will look for some more up-to-date public documents about the outcomes of the investigations.  Matthew C. Clarke  23:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Allegations relating to RSL LifeCare
Recent versions of this article note allegations made against Longley with respect to his directorship of RSL LifeCare.

These allegations led to no police or other legal action. The Public Inquiry under the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991 found that "There can be no suggestion that Mr Longley’s conduct at any stage of his service on the RSL LifeCare Board was anything other than honest." He was referred to ASIC and the ACNC] but neither have subsequently brought any further action against him. The only substantive outcome of the allegations was some improved governance requirements for RSL Lifecare, documented in a downloadable PDF from the ACNC site.

Matthew C. Clarke 01:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Several revisions
As per previous discussions, there are contentious issues here that probably violate BLP policies. Consequently, I have made a series of edits as follows:


 * Removed irrelevant and poorly cited references to Mr Longley's family


 * Removed reference to My Longley's religion: this had no supporting source and from personal knowledge is inaccurate


 * Re-directed a broken link, added a couple of citations and moved another citation to a more relevant past of the article


 * Re-worded a sentence about ARV deficit -- this sentence could actually be removed entirely since there is no external source


 * Reduced the description of allegations based on articles in Sydney Morning Herald to a single sentence

Matthew C. Clarke 02:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I subsequently removed the comment about improvements to the Anglican Retirement Village financial situation (4th bullet point above). This claim is uncited and largely irrelevant. I cannot find any publicly available information about that claim. From personal knowledge, however, the charity moved from a deficit to a surplus during Mr Longley's term of office. Matthew C. Clarke  10:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)