Talk:Michael Atkinson (politician)/draft

Please note: This talk-page is intended for the drafting and discussion of new and/or revised material for addition to the Michael Atkinson article.

Andrew Cannon Defamation Suit
Proposed addition to the article:


 * In September 2008 South Australian Deputy Chief Magistrate, Dr. Andrew Cannon, launched a civil defamation action against Atkinson. The proceedings were in response to comments made in a press conference in June in which he was described by the Attorney-General as "delusional" and having demonstrated a "daft misunderstanding of the law" after releasing a position paper advocating that judges and magistrates should consider prison overcrowding as a factor during sentencing. Atkinson later made a formal apology for the comments, stating "I affirm my support for Dr. Cannon as Deputy Chief Magistrate and my respect for the independence of the judiciary." The civil action ended in an out of court settlement in August 2009, with Dr. Cannon receiving a sum of $175,000 on behalf of the State Government.

Comments, constructive criticism, edits and improvements are encouraged. PieMachine (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good, although do you feel it may be a bit long? Perhaps the first two sentences could be combined into one.  It's not a deal-breaker, but I just wonder whether we should be careful about giving this event too much coverage, is all.  What do you reckon? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's a poorly constructed sentence. What I mean to say is that we should just try to ensure this issue doesn't dominate the article more than it needs to.  Typically I don't worry about that, but I think others might. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought the same thing. Maybe losing the quotation for the apology and instead just leaving the prose saying that he did make one, and the date he did so? PieMachine (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You need a more logical format. Take it chronologically.  Start with (header) "Relationship with judiciary".  Then, (1) Dr Cannon releases a position paper blasting the state government.  (2) Atkinson responds in press conference.  (3) Cannon launches a civil defamation action. (4) Atkinson apologises. (5) Out of court settlement, and details. Remember it's a wiki article, not an attack piece, and there's no need to rush to the bits that make Atkinson look bad.  This format also allows other editors to easily expand on the general topic of "relationship with judiciary". - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Internet Censorship
Try this:
 * During Febuary 2009, Atkinson defended laws enacted by the Rann government requiring anyone posting comments or blogs during election periods to also post their real name and postcode. However, following widespread criticism, Atkinson announced he would be repealing the laws, saying ""When one gets public opinion wrong, as I did, one has to change one's mind."

Thoughts? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm actually inclined to agree with Timeshift on the Internet Censorship controversy- even though Atkinson was the public figurehead for it, the legislation was none the less government policy that was agreed to by other political parties. I think Timeshift may be right in saying that it belongs in a Rann Government article rather than Atkinson's own, considering the fact that it was not orchestrated entirely by him as an individual. PieMachine (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, it was government policy, but no-one can deny that it was his. Regardless, he was the primary defender of the policy, he accepted full responsibility for the backdown, essentially calling it personally humiliating , and was held responsible for it within the media (eg here:).  Furthermore, he is the minister who was given the power to repeal the law in the regulations, and he did so.  Don Farrell (while still giving him his full support) effectively called this whole event Atkinson's mistake, as did Rann (see here: ).


 * I appreciate your point, but that is why I was careful to say that Atkinson himself defended the laws, and was criticised for them, and why I did not say that they were his. His defence of these laws, and the criticism directed toward him for it, are certainly notable (given how substantially they have affected the public perception of the AG), and have significant coverage in reliable sources.  This is why I think coverage of the defence and the criticism should be in this article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I've made my point, so I'll leave it open to other contributors in order to see which way the consensus goes. However I would suggest, for the sake of readability and good prose, possibly changing the paragraph around to:
 * In February 2009 Atkinson received criticism for his defence of laws enacted by the Rann Government that would...(etc), followed by citation of sources (such as the advertiser poll) and then his backdown and the promise that they would not be enacted during the campaign.
 * I'm still not sure if it's not strictly proper, but at least this keeps it more focused on him and makes the destinction between his actions and government policy. I would also suggest adding the poll on whether he should resign (from AdelaideNow, I think), because that in particular relates to his position as AG and the public perception of that position. PieMachine (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that prose is better (prose isn't my strong point).


 * I'm personally not crazy about adding in the AdelaideNow poll. I've run into trouble at Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2 regarding the addition of Advertiser-run polls, and I think those online polls run on AdelaideNow are even less reliable than that.  To be honest, I don't believe they're sufficiently reliable for something like that, especially if the consensus at Mike Rann is anything to go by.  I would probably prefer to keep it simply a well-referenced recitation of the facts rather than putting much more of the public commentary in there; we need to watch WP:NPOV.  What do you think? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's true. The AdelaideNow polls are pretty dodgy- If you reload the page it will let you vote again and again, so you're right- it should be left out. And having read Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2 I'm forced to agree with you; we should only be citing polls with a revealed sample size and methodology anyway. I only mention it because it focuses on a direct expression of public opinion on his role as AG, which should be the focus if we're going to include this in his article. Do you know of any sources that can offer a different public view? It just feels like the section is a little weak without something else in there; and it makes it hard to justify its inclusion. Maybe a mention of what the criticism is was actually about; restriction on freedom of speech and the possibility of legal action against the public. We need to be sure to cite a few reliable sources for that though, since it deals with criticism. The Advertiser and Sunday Mail ran a lot of stuff, but do you know of anything outside of News Ltd. Sydney Morning Herald, possibly? It doesn't need to go into depth on the political commentary, but I feel that the section needs something of weight, or else it starts to make the article look like a list of minor issues. PieMachine (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

On 1st March MediaWatch reported that Atkinson is suing the author of a post on the AdelaideNow forums for $20,000 for calling him a 'crook'. Jonathan Holmes talks about it and they show the letter the man recieved from Atkinson's lawyers. Deserve a mention under the recent Internet Censorship? PieMachine (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)