Talk:Q+A (Australian talk show)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tony Jones.jpg
The image Image:Tony Jones.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --15:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Zaky Mallah Incident
Thanks to User:Tuntable for cleaning up this section a bit. I have also made some changes. This is a live current event so we need to watch out for WP:Recentism, especially overburdening the article by events as they happen due to a news spike. Lots of people are adding facts about events as they happen which is making the section bloated and messy. Over time, we need to edit this section down to the important facts. Applying the 10 year test, what content will people expect to see in 10 years time? Perhaps a lot of the content that people have put so much effort into could be moved to the Zaky Mallah page where it would be more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.158.17 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I've restored some of the older content and phrasing. Note that Wikipedia serves the information needs of users, not any particular political group that claims to represent them - it's not a place to work as the bully pulpit of any particular political party.
 * DUE and POV issues

There are issues with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:DUE

Firstly, there should be a diversity of coverage from various news outlets (not opinion) with various perspectives - the Media Watch program "Terror over that error" provides good background to what happened, Mallah's backgronud, and how the media reacted - without apparently pushing a partisan line.

My changes: Tuntable continuously pushes the language "Mallah responded that Ministers like Ciobo pushed some Muslims to extremism" This is a violation of ATTRIBUTEPOV - the full quote is acceptable, even if poorly stated - this doesn't need to be editorialised over by the guardian (Media Watch includes the full quote)

Tuntable wants to add editorialisation over semantic differences between the terms gang bang and "gang rape" - Media Watch includes discussion about the Skaf brothers from 2006 that show this semantic argument is not warranted. Note that Media Watch reports that "by his own admission he is a sympathiser of Jabhat al-Nusra" - this is included in the Media Watch reference - this doesn't need to be pushed into the language of Wikipedia - it just shows what the Media Watch reference is a more impartial source than the Guardian.

Tuntable wants to include language editorialising over Mark Scott's comments that the ABC is not a state broadcaster - this is not directly relevant, and the main issue is the editorial judgement of the program's editorial team - this can be discussed without editorialising over Scott's discussion of media repression of state broadcasters.

Tuntable wants to include extensive quotes from opinion pieces. Wikipedia's should improve source reliability and neutrality, and not give undue coverage to recent events, as it is not a newspaper. Opinion pieces do not really need extensive quotes, and I'd rather just have a one sentence grab about different public figures react - if any Australian was not born yesterday they know that Miranda Devine and Richard Ackland will respond in fairly predictable ways.

The other issue is that Tuntable has sought to remove content on the number of complaints to the ABC itself - this means that the program has possibly violated the ABC charter or editorial standards - no equivocation with North Korea required to make that point.

Per WP:BRD, please discuss changes or additions before making them - there is already OK coverage of the fallout, and I believe should reduce down to verifiable facts that pass the 10 year rule, without extensive coverage of opinion pieces that will fall into the dustbin of history.

-- Aronzak (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving on...
First let us cover what I think we agree on.
 * That the Q&A incident is notable.
 * That this page is a not unreasonable place to cover it.
 * That expanding the quote from Mallah to the full is OK. (My feeling was that it had been a bit long.)
 * That neither of us are the sole judge of how wiki-law applies to this article.

Moving on, I am putting back the quotes by Abbot. He did not just express mild disagreement with Q&A, but made very strong statements, and he but is the Prime Minister. I think it is difficult to argue that they are not very relevant to this issue (in fact, they are what defines the incident as notable in the first place).

I have also added a few paragraph breaks and minor tweaks which I think are uncontrovertial. And yes, this is taking far too much of my time.

Tuntable (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. It is completely obvious that Abbot's remarks are not just incidental but in fact the crux of the matter. I did not see them duplicated in the article.

The link you added to http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4264050.htm is actually quite good. If you wanted to just summarize that it would provide good coverge. And of course, it starts with the remarks by Abbott, because that is what drives the entire story. (If Abbot had said nothing, the episode would not be notable.)

Please stop this. Even if you do not totally agree that it is relevant, it is very difficult to say that it is totally irrelevant. Working with other people means accepting that things may not go 100% your way. There are changes that you made that I do not totally agree with, but I do not challenge them because I want to move on. But this is central, and obviously so.

Following your love of wiki-law, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus, and in particular
 * Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.

Otherwise this dispute will go on and on, be escalated, get other people involved, on and on. All a huge waste of time. Wikipedia is great when people work constructively to build an article. But this is horrible.

Tuntable (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "I did not see them duplicated in the article.""Prime Minister Tony Abbott strongly criticised the ABC for "giving Mallah a platform" saying that that "heads should roll".[19] He asked "Which side is the ABC on?" and said that the ABC "betrayed" Australia[20] He further criticised the rebroadcast of the program. A government inquiry into the episode was announced. [21] Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who has not appeared on the program while in office, instituted a ban on members of his Front Bench appearing on the program[22] and condemned the ABC for "giving Mallah a platform," saying that they had "betrayed" Australia[20][23] and that "heads should roll".[24]"

They are duplicated. "get other people involved" - that's the point of consensus - other editors had used DUE and RECENTISM tags. This looks mostly fine now. -- Aronzak (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * First, you are correct they were duplicated. I looked a the rest of the article for them, but did not see them buried in the paragraph.  Sorry.


 * I have, however, reordered the paragraphs a bit. The Prime Ministers strong words were what really made this issue noteworthy, so I have put them in roughly chronological order.  I also removed the comment "who has not appeared on the program while in office" as I do not see it relevant.  Happy to see it back if desired, just not at the beginning.


 * There are more edits to go, I do want to see a lot more material here, but one step at a time. (I have also been busy with other matters.)


 * Also removed the commented out section, as they are hard to follow. It is all archived at User:Tuntable/Q&A (Australian talk show) if anyone wants it.

Tuntable (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added a description of the media reaction to the show, plus the reaction by other commentators. (There is actually quite a bit more relevant material that could be added, but I personally have had enough of this article. Some of the missing content is on my private copy noted above, and I encourage others to extend the article.  The incident is quite important because it helps define the relationship between the government and the ABC.) Tuntable (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Q&A (Australian talk show). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101107105558/http://blogs.abc.net.au:80/abc_tv/2010/10/qa-goes-live-across-australia-on-abc-news-24.html to http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2010/10/qa-goes-live-across-australia-on-abc-news-24.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A prime minister called the show a lefty lynch mob and initiated a boycott of the program
These are extraordinary events that should be noted. These and several additional points were made in my recent edits which an editor has deleted prior to completion of my integration of them into the article (although the editor will not have know this, and is entitled to object to changes). Perhaps the editor can review the extensive additional material and make suggestions on how to fit it in to the whole. I agree there is a risk of repetition, given some of the events are covered simply as "notable episodes", however the program has had persistent accusations of bias not merely from "news limited" media as suggested in the current article. While left wing media and political parties have not complained about bias... that rather proves the point. Observoz (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You open with the shoe-throwing incident, repeated in another section (first instance of this), and did not mention that Prime Minister Howard endorsed the auctioning of those shoes (cherry-picking the facts of a situation as to illustrate a point of view is a no-no). Further, the source provided does not make the assertion that the program supported the shoe-throwing incident (in fact, it says the complete opposite in its opening paragraph). Your implication is purely original research. More so, the program merely reports on the auction, and does so, after Howard's endorsement of the auction.
 * Pyne protest, already mentioned (second instance of this). Perhaps merge with existing Pyne section (although material is quite similar).
 * Mallah and Abbott Gov response, already mentioned (third instance of this). I agree that Abbott's comments are of benefit, and should be merged with the existing Mallah section.
 * Leak's paragraph makes no connection whatsoever to the allegations of bias. Make no mistake, I can see what conclusion you're coming to, but we don't write material in the way you have, as to lead our readers into making their own conclusions without basis in reliable sources. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 10:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note though that the new edits began by mentioning that the program has been a platform for protest, so the Leak incident naturally fits in and is now of course the subject of yet more "bias" criticism against the show. The Leak incident and the handling of it by the moderator (ie he said "We understand why you’d want to make a stand at this particular moment. We appreciate you being here" after the protester had shouted down a panelist to call the deceased artist a "racist") and the fact that the show had a moderator who has protested against Leak (and no panelists supported his cartoon) has once again sparked a fresh round of anger from critics of the show's politics, so sources are plentiful there. Your opinion that the show did not "support" the auction of the shoe thrown at Howard does not bare scrutiny. Tony Jones announcing the auction on air cannot be taken other than support for the auction. Although my edits were interrupted, the ABC summary of the incident supplied I agree was not sufficient. Howard's response to the request of Qanda to promote the auction does not detract from the "perception" of bias the promotion of the auction creates. I note too that the word "bias" does not appear in the article. I think it needs to be there. Observoz (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My perception is that the moderator recognised that Leak was a controversial figure -- which he was -- and acknowledged that protestors would naturally have their own opinion. Of course, you see that as bias somehow. I'm not comfortable with making that distinction, hence, I don't support adding said content to the article. This is starting to seem very WP:UNDUE and you seem keen to change this article from Q&A to Criticism of Q&A -- which reeks of WP:COATRACK.
 * If we were to use your flawed logic, which is what it is: news reporters would be endorsing everything they report on. No, Tony Jones reported on air about there being an auction, Howard endorsed the auction. For you to omit Howard's endorsement, and to paint this in a negative view highlights your lack of objectivity to the issue at hand. In fact, you even went a step further by saying that the program endorsed the shoe-throwing -- when the source said otherwise. Had you simply added that sentence in to the article, mentioning that the program supported the incident (as you implied), despite the source saying otherwise: I would have reverted your edit based on factual errors, which is a form of disruptive editing. Don't misrepresent sources, as you did. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 00:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect MelbourneStar, it is weasel words to say Tony Jones "reported" the news of the auction - because, as you know, this is not a news reporting program. So please tone down your talk of "disruptive" editing and accept my good faith and openness to reasonable exchange. Tony Jones decided to give national publicity to the auction. In view of the controversial nature of that decision, it is far more relevant to mention in this article than the current irrelevant wording: "he asked for his shoes to be auctioned off and the money to be donated to the Red Cross". NEXT - On Zachy Mallah, the article must note that he was found guilty of "threatening a commonwealth official" and that his violent social media remarks about female conservative journalists etc formed part of the controversy. Presently the article misleads by saying only "Mallah was found not guilty of terrorism offences in 2005" (in fact He was acquitted of terrorism charges in 2005, but pleaded guilty to threatening violence against Commonwealth officials). Leaving out such details plainly draws a reader to a wrongful perception of the true scenario. FINALLY Whilst you are entitled to your perception of the latest protest on the program, I invite you to consider the following: many Australian artists, commentators, journalists, politicians etc supported Leak's cartoon and any, of course did not. But ALL the Q&A panelists spoke against the cartoon in question while the moderator had actually protested against it. Whether or not you agree with the panelists, you must concede they did not represent the spectrum of opinion on Leak, and concede that critics of the program are complaining about the incident. But - on a positive note, I note that you agree Abbott's "lefty" remarks can be included.  Observoz (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Observoz, will you quit your editorialising? what you or I think about the series and it's neutrality (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the content that is presented; if there are reliable sources that state that the series showed bias in who it had on the panel during the Leak episode, then we can state something -- you grasping at the straws saying implicitly that all panellists were somehow bias couldn't be more wrong, wrong, and wrong. With respect, I couldn't care less about your opinion; I do care about the what the sources provided have to say. Just because the panellists were unanimous in their agreement/disagreement of something, does not make them bias – or make them not bias. However, you are saying as fact that they must be bias -- well how about you go and find reliable sources which agree with your assertion.
 * Re the shoe incident: you have yet to provide a reliable source that contends that Q&A/Jones were endorsing/supporting the auction – so consider that moot, at this point, since you are still unable to provide proof. Q&A isn't a news outlet, okay.. but it's a place of debate, and you or I can report on an issue -- that doesn't make us partisans. Nor does it for Q&A. Find reliable sources which deem Jones' reporting of the auction "controversial" -- otherwise, how about you stop wasting time with this original research nonsense.
 * Re Mallah, I've specifically said that you could merge the contents of what you had proposed to add into the article, with what is presently there. I didn't raise any issue, with the exception it may be WP:UNDUE if we focus too much on the Mallah situation. —Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 04:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Undue
I've tagged the Reception section with an undue tag; as discussed above, the content of this article is reading a lot like a Criticism of Q&A article, rather than a general article on the series. With the section in mind, are we going to cite every single journalist who has criticised the program and why? are we going to list every single politician who has criticised the program and why?

Are we going to do this, in spite of WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK? —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is slowly improving in accuracy. The new additions in the section you highlight only mention the past two Liberal Prime Ministers, the current deputy Liberal Prime Minister, and the presentation of the issue to the ABC Managing Director during a Senate Estimates Hearing. There is no substance to your complaint about including these. On journos, I will truncate the new additions on journos (now that you have seen the full quotes and I hope will be less inclined to argue that controversies don't exist. Observoz (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have now trimmed back some of the material on journo complaints, added subheadings for navigability, and added a series of comments from Ray Martin's audit of the program. Observoz (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Having had a look at the work you've done – my comment, and tag, still stand. You may have sources to back that coatrack you've got going, but I have policy – WP:UNDUE. As it stands, that section is mostly criticism and pile-on from too many people and weight is given to too many people and their thoughts, as is the Notable Episodes section -- so if you think that this not undue, you are sorely mistaken. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 02:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * On the topic of wikipedia policy it is difficult to see the crux of many of your complaints as other than "I don't like it" and feel you you failed to assume good faith from the outset. Though I can't follow, or even understand some of the earlier logic in your comments and editorialising on this thread (eg "you grasping at the straws saying implicitly that all panellists were somehow bias couldn't be more wrong, wrong, and wrong" - what??), I do note that you have not repeated the claim that the views of 2 PMs, a deputy and a Senate Estimates question to the Managing Director are somehow insignificant. I also see that you acknowledge the sourcing is correct, and understand that you want more positives in the mix of the "reception" section, and overall less length. I think this can be accommodated. Do you have any such positive material to suggest?
 * Also - I don't especially like the lay-out of the Notable Episodes section either. While Mallah needs more attention than the others, I think most of the rest could be summarised far more briefly in the history section without individual headings? What do you think? Observoz (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet, you seemingly failed the basic policy of adding original research or adding factual errors in spite of the sources provided (Re: Howard) -- let's not pretend that you've not been here for a decade and don't know these things. You piled on the reception section with negative material, despite being fully aware that the article already has a criticism section in virtue of the "notable episodes" section (containing controversial episodes). Nowhere did I say that criticism ought to be matched with positive feedback -- although it would be great for some balance where possible. My issue, is the fact that you've managed to find every conservative journalist against the series, every conservative politician, and add their opinion as to why they are critical of the series -- in the face of WP:UNDUE. Prime Ministers Howard and Abbott ought to be mentioned — but not every single other politician below them; think of other people too, outside of the right equation: the controversy surrounding Germaine Greer's comments about Prime Minister Gillard, is an example.
 * I too, think it can be summarised – as should be the case with the reception section, whereby we don't list every single person who is critical of the series (just like we wouldn't and shouldn't list every single person who likes the series), with exception to the main people (like PMs).
 * My statement above which had confused you was in response to you saying that all the panellists on the Leak episode were biased -- when I'm pretty sure there were panellists who supported Leak on that panel. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I sense finally an effort to conciliate and understand, so thanks for that. I don't want to get bogged down on Leak - it is a small piece in the puzzle, but as you'd proffered your perception, so I proffered my explanation of the alternative. Note though, that I was specific in mentioning the cartoon that had offended the panelists - as opposed to Leak in general. There were indeed panelists who said Leak was a good bloke, but none who defended the cartoon in question. This is where I say they were not representative, as we've just seen from Leak's funeral, where people as diverse (and SIGNIFICANT) as Tunrbull, Barry Humphries, Paul Kelly etc all defended the cartoon. On your other points, I assure you I have not come close to providing "every conservative politician" who has complained, but I do note as progress that you recognise that it is conservative politicians who complain. As for journalists, do you not see the significance of "every" conservative journalist writing that the program is biased? Is there another ABC program where they are so unanimous? If so, please tell us which. In the "reception" section I have named JUST 4 politicians who are critical of the program: two prime ministers, one deputy Liberal leader, and one Senator who, according to the SMH, said "If you spoke to any Coalition MP – even those appear on it – they'd admit the program does lean to the left". Quoting these four does not become close to exhaustive, but is representative. The fact of the matter is, Labor or Green politicians do not make these claims. Only Coalition and right of centre parties do. Agreed? Observoz (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not being offended by a cartoon, versus being offended – does not make you biased. If that were the case, I'd have expected those who thought Leak was genuinely a good person, to have thought otherwise. There was, from my understanding, a divergence on the panel for what type of person Leak was; but on something as specific as the cartoon, it was unanimous; we don't know whether some of these people were conservative, liberal – but they all shared the same opinion in the end. That hardly makes the series biased.
 * My point would be this: are we going to go to the equally exhaustive step of adding a section for every other MP, Labor/Greens or otherwise, who have praised the program? or defended it? Like, after the shoe throwing incident, the Mallah incident, as detailed in the article with respective thoughts from Coalition MPs — I think everyone gets the picture, no need to pile on. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 12:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Updates
hi can somebody update the Most frequent guests. its been last updated 14 November 2016. thanks Torygreen84 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)