Talk:Keith Wright (Australian politician)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keith Wright (Australian politician). 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/20131031204133/http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/parliamentaryrecord/sections/Part%202.19.pdf to http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/explore/parliamentaryrecord/sections/Part%202.19.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) 22:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence
Colleagues: I was just looking at this article, and I was a little uneasy about the opening sentence in the intro. I'm not sure that KW is notable for his criminal offences per se. Thus I am wondering if it is better simply to state in the intro that he was an Australian politician, and then to leave the material about his conviction in the text of the article. Any thoughts? Research17 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There seems to have been no response to the above comment. If I don't hear any opinion to the contrary in the next few days, I'll edit the article to simply refer to 'Australian politician' in the opening sentence. The stuff about his actual conviction, that is, in the body of the article, I will leave untouched. Research17 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that an Editor calling him/herself The Drover's Wife has reverted the above edit. What I'd like to do is to invite this Editor to engage in this Talk Page. In particular, I think it would be constructive to know the rationale for this reversion. Research17 (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I just Googled "Keith Wright". Hit #1 is this article: Hits #2, #4 and #5 respectively "Disgraced former Queensland Labor leader Keith Wright dies", "Nostalgic Brisbane: The disgusting secret life of former Labor leader Keith Wright", and "Keith Wright says sorry for sexual sins that landed him in jail", while the first sentence of Hit #3 (his Sydney Morning Herald obituary) is "Keith Wright was a holy roller Baptist lay preacher who led the Queensland ALP to a near win against Joh Bjelke-Petersen and then was jailed for raping an under-aged girl." I don't think you've got a leg to stand on in minimising his child abuse. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drover's wife, and thanks for your input. Just a minor point of clarification: I take it from your post that the rationale for your reversion on 8 September is that the suggested amendment "minimizes" the criminal history of Wright. Research17 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Every article I referred to refers to the child sex offences in the title of their story or the first sentence. You want to bury it deep in the body of the article because you don't think he is "notable for his criminal offences per se". That is minimising it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Drover's Wife for that. I am thinking of making a further comment on this matter, but, before doing so, I thought, as a courtesy, I should invite you to indicate whether your reversion of 8 September was based on any evidence other than the google-search you've mentioned. Research17 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you may be misunderstanding Notability. Keith Wright is notable (in the Wikipedia sense) because he was a Member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly. That means he can have an article on Wikipedia. He may or may not have "notability" in the Wikipedia sense as a criminal, but that is irrelevant as he has already qualified for an article. Neither the article nor the opening sentence/paragraph is restricted to matters related to the Wikipedia notability criteria. The role of the opening sentence/paragraph is to summarise the article (see WP:LEAD) so I don't think the inclusion of his criminal behaviour in the opening sentence is a problem given the article discusses it and is supported by citations. While other people who committed similar offences may not have become "household names", because Wright was a politician, there was extensive media coverage of his offences. I doubt there are too many people who remember him just as an MLA. I wouldn't propose including a littering fine, but child rape is a pretty serious offence. Kerry (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kerry. Thanks for that input. I think I should probably hold any further response until I have given Drover's Dog adequate opportunity to respond to my invitation from yesterday. Research17 (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I find your "invitation" a bit bizarre. You've not remotely tried to justify your minimising of his child sex offences beyond stating that you don't think they're "notable", even though I've now pointed out that literally every top Google hit, all reliable sources, includes it in either the title or the opening sentence. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Drover's Wife. Thanks for that. Comments noted. I take it from your post that you don't intend forwarding any further evidence in support of your reversion action of 8 September 2017, other than the google-search you've already forwarded. Research17 (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello colleagues:

Just some response on the input thus far:

1. My thanks again to Drover's Wife for his comments. I should explain that my reason for inviting further evidence was that I'm not entirely convinced that a simple google search represents best practice for constructing or editing a Wikipedia article. I say this as a simple google search will capture statements of opinion, or at least editorial-type statements, as well as statements of fact. That said, I think the comments from Drover's Wife have been useful, as they have pointed to a more basic deficiency in the article, which I'll explain below. BTW, I should apologize if I gave the impression that I wanted to minimize the seriousness of the crimes of KW. That is/was not my intention.

2. My thanks again also to Kerry for her comments. Kerry correctly points out that WK:LEAD indicates that an opening paragraph should summarize the article. True - but I think this may be a case where Wikipedia polity may be at odds with Wikipedia policy. For instance, if we look at other Queensland politicians jailed for crimes in recent decades, such as Bill D'Arcy, Brian Austin, Don Lane, Geoff Muntz, Merri Rose, there is no mention of criminality in the opening sentence or paragraph. I note also that the Wikipedia article on policy indicates that with Wikipedia there are no hard and fast rules. That said, it may possibly be best to leave the intro as is for the moment, pending addressing the deficiency I want to mention below.

3. I believe there would be general agreement as to the seriousness of the crimes of KW. It is precisely because of this, I want to suggest it is also important to have within the Wikipedia article, in precise terms, a list of what the Queensland Supreme Court actually convicted KW of. I have located what I believe is such a list in a statement by former Premier Peter Beattie in Queensland Hansard of 27 April 1999. However I will look for a better source, and get back to this Talk Page after I have completed looking.

Research17 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Just an update. Contrary to my suggestion above, I now understand that it is not regarded as appropriate to reference court records in a wikipedia article, as this is deemed original research. I believe therefore that the best source for a complete and precise list of the Wright's crimes (that is, for which the Queensland Supreme Court found him guilty) is in the statement from from Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to Parliament in 1999. The Premier lists these crimes as "Indecent dealing with a girl under the age of 14 years", "Indecent dealing with a girl under the age of 16 years" and "Rape". The Premier's statement also gives information on the total term of imprisonment for Wright, and when he was granted parole. As indicated in my posting two years ago, the crimes of Wright are clearly serious, although it is precisely because of this I think it is important to have a complete and precise list of the crimes. What I suggest is including this information in the article, under the Section title Criminal History. Information on Wright's subsequent imprisonment might also be included in this Section. Does anyone have any objection to including this information in the article? Research17 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No objection here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)