Talk:Peter Dutton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alan Joyce

The details about Alan Joyce need to be related to the CEO letter. At present, there is no connection between then two. Cyeks5Om 11 May 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Opposition to same-sex marriage

Re: these edits: - given that the title/headline of the reference cited is "Peter Dutton working behind the scenes to legislate same-sex marriage before CEO spray" I think that only saying "Dutton opposes same-sex marriage" is misleading. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Equally I think the text as it currently stands (your bit) is misleading as well as it suggests that Dutton is working to bring about same-sex marriage - BUT this is not actually what he says or does publicly. In the cited article it says that Dutton "privately" revealed his belief that it will happen, however his public stance - which is better documented - has been strongly against same-sex marriage.

People who support same-sex marriage are dubious about how conservatives are handling this issue - the plebiscite - as it carries no weight under our legal structure and even if the majority of Australians voted for same-sex marriage, numerous conservative politicians have said they still wouldn't vote for it in parliament (which means it would not achieve any change in legislature)..

The article saying that Dutton is privately working away at something and wants to solve the issue before the next election doesn't actually address these key issues about how he is going to get conservative politicians like himself to vote for same-sex marriage. It is just as possible that Dutton wants to skew the results of the plebiscite in the conservatives favour to "deal" with the issue by killing it.

As such, I think an improvement on the current text should include clearly that while Dutton may have "privately" said what you wrote, publicly all his actions and words have been against same-sex marriage.Powertothepeople (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the quote slightly to include "said privately".

I think the text as it currently stands (your bit) is misleading as well as it suggests that Dutton is working to bring about same-sex marriage — Neither my earlier wording nor the current text suggests any such thing - it states (now with inline citation) his personal opposition to same-sex marriage and quotes the source on his belief that it is inevitable. The Wikipedia article makes no mention of Dutton working to bring it about - although the reference does say that explicitly, so perhaps Wikipedia also ought to say it explicitly.

... even if the majority of Australians voted for same-sex marriage, numerous conservative politicians have said they still wouldn't vote for it in parliament (which means it would not achieve any change in legislature). ... — That may be the case, but ABC news article you cite does not mention Dutton at all, so carries no weight here. (At best it is WP:SYN.)

... I think an improvement on the current text should include clearly that while Dutton may have "privately" said what you wrote, publicly all his actions and words have been against same-sex marriage. — That may well be the case – if you can provide some references to support the statement that "publicly all his actions and words have been against same-sex marriage". Mitch Ames (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the word "privately." Regarding the rest of your comments... I thought this section was meant to be a brief summary of his political views. There is already an earlier section under the sub heading "2017 same sex marriage" that has more detail of his strong public stance against same-sex marriage. I don't expect you want me to be repetitious by reposting all of that?

As is currently stands, it is a selective quotation of the source material that *infers* that Peter Dutton is working behind the scenes to achieve same-sex marriage, even though the article itself also mentions his recent public opposition "The forcefulness of Mr Dutton's attack on corporate chief executives last week - in which he told them to "stick to their knitting" - has aroused suspicion among some colleagues who believed he was committed to achieving a breakthrough on the issue." 99% of what has been reported in hundreds of articles indicates that Dutton is strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, but then this one article that claims he has said something else privately is selectively quoted.

The overwhelming weight of evidence is that peter dutton is against same-sex marriage and opposed to those who support it, and as such this should be clear in the "political views" section. As mentioned earlier I could add in some more quotes and citations in this section to even out what is already written, but this would add bloat and repetition (and I don't like to mess with someone else's work when they are still active on it). How would you like me to proceed? Powertothepeople (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There is already an earlier section under the sub heading "2017 same sex marriage" that has more detail of his strong public stance against same-sex marriage.  – As far as I can tell most of that section, and the references, is about Dutton's view that CEOs ought not express an opinion on same-sex marriage, not about Dutton's own view on same-sex marriage.

The "Political views" currently explicitly says "Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage" - it can't be much clearer than that. Is there some reason you think that the SMH reference is incorrect when it says that Dutton thinks it is inevitable? Is there a reliable source that says that Dutton does not think that same-sex marriage is inevitable or does not think the Coalition should control the process? Bear in mind that someone can think something is inevitable independently of whether that person supports or opposes the idea.

If you have appropriate references that explicitly support the statements "opposed to those who support it" perhaps the simplest would be just add that, eg:

Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage and those who support it, but has "said privately that it was inevitable that same-sex marriage would become law in Australia so it would be better for the Coalition, rather than Labor, to control the process".

Another possibility (which could be combined with the above) is to delete the word "personally":

Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage, ...

to remove any implication that he opposes it personally but supports it publicly. (I don't think the Wikipedia article currently makes that implication, but deleting the word might stop readers making an unintended inference.)

If you have a reliable source that says "all his actions ... have been against same-sex marriage", you could add something like:

Dutton personally opposes same-sex marriage, but has "said privately that it was inevitable that same-sex marriage would become law in Australia so it would be better for the Coalition, rather than Labor, to control the process". However he has been publicly working against same-sex marriage.

References

I'm not satisfied that this suggestion is suitably accurate or neutral in communicating Dutton's political views or actions on the subject. I don't quite understand why it is written in such a manner that could lead people to believe that Dutton is more open to allowing same-sex marriage than the evidence suggests. Originally it was short and succinct "Dutton opposes same-sex marriage" and now it has turned into this. Below is my suggestion, which is now way longer than I would like but meets your requirements while seeking to be more accurate.

Dutton opposes same-sex marriage. In March 2017 it was reported in The Sydney Morning Herald that Dutton "said privately that it was inevitable that same-sex marriage would become law in Australia so it would be better for the Coalition, rather than Labor, to control the process." However Dutton's actions publicly have been in opposition to same-sex advocates and "the forcefulness of Mr Dutton's attack on corporate chief executives this week - in which he told them to "stick to their knitting" - has aroused suspicion among some colleagues who believed he was committed to achieving a breakthrough on [same-sex marriage]." The following month the Daily Telegraph reported that Dutton was asked by a lesbian for clarification on his position, and he "told her he had been clear that he was against same-sex marriage." In his political career Dutton has voted "very strongly against same-sex marriage." Powertothepeople (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable. A couple of minor points:

• The quotes need to be accurate: eg "he said privately it was inevitable", not "he said privately that it was inevitable" (if "that" is needed so it reads sensibly, but it in square brackets); "The forcefulness of Mr Dutton's attack on corporate chief executives last week ... "
• Move the full stops out of the quotes (which are not full sentences), per WP:LQ.

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I have made those changes now on the main page as per your recommendations. Powertothepeople (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

OK. BTW, I recommend getting in to the habit of using copy and paste for quotes and titles, to reduce transcription errors. . Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Dutton. 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/20071112140132/http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/41/mpsbyage.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/parl/41/mpsbyage.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Section 44

Please add the semi-protect lock symbol to this article.

Please also add the following in a section called "Section 44" just prior to the leadership spill section:

Doubts surrounding Dutton's eligibility to be elected to parliament emerged on the grounds of section 44(v) of the Australian Constitution, and Labor had sought legal advice on the matter in April 2018. The section prohibits those with a pecuniary interest in an agreement with the Commonwealth from running for office. The family trust owned by Dutton operated a child care centre that received over $5.6 million in funding from the Commonwealth Government. A similar scenario with a Commonwealth-funded building company saw Senator Bob Day effectively disqualified by the High Court in 2017. Although Dutton has received legal advice stating that he is not in breach of the constitution, Attorney-General Christian Porter referred the matter to the Solicitor-General of Australia.

References

(The above text is adapted lightly from the Wikipedia article Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2018, please don't forget to note that in the edit summary.)

Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Added {{pp-vandalism}} - FlightTime (open channel) 23:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

 Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Three au pairs or two?

When the news of the au pair visa linked to AFL CEO Gil McLachlan broke, it was reported as a third visa case. But later reporting seems to only be talking about the Italian and French au pair cases, rather than those two plus a third unknown one. Is it possible that the McLachlan case is just the original November case? --James (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Two seems correct. A good summary of the state of affairs (plus some more criticism) is here - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-04/immigration-insiders-slam-peter-duttons-au-pair-interventions/10200990 HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Slightly partisan

In the article, it seems that there are lines of quotes specifically praising Dutton's policy announcement whilst it a) Wasn't something that Dutton himself did, said or made but was part of Coalition worked policy and b) seems to violate wikipedia's non-neutrality position. Aneditor (talk tome) 08:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some passages that seem to have been inserted to praise Dutton, but there are negative points as well. It could do with some editing to be more neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what kind of business he ran in 1999. No reference of this on the internet, though his property portfolio is apparently quite large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.214.1 (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have added some info about his business - Dutton Holdings - which traded under a number of names. Involved in building renovations, property development, and childcare centres. This was registered in 2000, so I am not sure what other business he might have had prior to that (one article I read mentioned he was working with his dad on a business while he was still a cop - ie before 1999 - but I don't know if it's the same business, or a different one, or changed names, etc). Powertothepeople (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The content under "Violence" needs attention. It reads as though all of Melbourne ridiculed Peter Dutton. Ridicule on social media should be described as such. I don't think such a thin line warrants its own heading. User: LyndellaLee — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge 'personal life' section into 'early life'

It seems to me that the info in the last section of the article titled "personal life" would best fit under the earlier section "early life" as the information about his personal life only goes to 2003, which is before and slightly overlapping in timeline with the next section "Howard Government" from 2001-2007. And/or to split the information in "early life" between the personal and "early career" as the two are currently mixed under one section. How do others feel about this? Powertothepeople (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Defamation

There have been at least high profile court cases where Dutton has sued someone in the last few years. There is nothing on this page about any cases. I was seeking information because I couldn't remember if Dutton had been involved in another case or not, and came to Wikipedia, but found nothing at all about defamation cases. E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jul/29/awarding-248000-in-legal-costs-would-be-a-windfall-for-shane-bazzi-peter-dutton-warns "Awarding $248,000 in legal costs would be a ‘windfall’ for Shane Bazzi, Peter Dutton warns" is a recent article about one case. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/peter-dutton-wins-defamation-case-against-shane-bazzi/100645832 is another article on the same case. Please consider adding information to this article about this (and any other) cases. 202.14.131.60 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC) Or it's possible that I just didn't see it on my first look at the article... 202.14.131.60 (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2023

The Prasser family had multiple perminent residencies long before the Dutton family & their first (perminent residence) home was built by the Prasser family. The Prasser family owns the sovereignty of Queensland Australia which was established in 1919, then in 2014 We gave the land back to it's original owners the "Sovereign Yidindji Government" The current Government of Queensland is false & will be dealt with accordingly.

PLease fix this as now it seems like a media take over as opposed to the rightous truth ! 2403:580B:605A:0:50AE:F006:67F1:78DB (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Image

It is my view that the image used on the Wikipedia page of Peter Dutton is just not very appropriate. I highly recommend we use the image below as it is clearer and more appropriate compared to the current one.

File:Peter Dutton May 2018.jpg SymeonHellas (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether to add position on Gaza refugees to "Political views"

Dutton's comments insisting the inadmissibility of Gaza refugees have persisted for quite some time and have been the subject of newspaper discussions. We should probably add a sub-section on it. Y. Dongchen (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sections on the same topic

This article has a few issues - coherence being the major one - but I'll start with one thing that jumps out. Why are there two separate sections on South African farmers? Is this intentional, are we trying to separate out his views from his actions somehow? Or did someone just not notice there was already a section in the article - any objection to combining? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @Ivar the Boneful - just noticed your comment and, yes, coherence is a massive problem on this article. Lots of items that deserve one or two sentences are 200 words. And, yes, two separate sections on South African farmers! Odd. Would happily support you in making relevant improvements. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Balance

I have been augmenting the "Political positions and public image" section. In addition to the many opposing viewpoints about which I have been writing, it is necessary to add instances of support for his positions as well. We should do it. Y. Dongchen (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Only if such expressions of support come from unexpected quarters. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course. I have not yet found portrayals of endorsement for him in reliable sources, even from figures like Tony Abbott. Y. Dongchen (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Lack of consultation.

There has been a number of reverts recently, and editors in particular who have been removing content sourced by mainstream media sources only to replace them with weaker sources from other news sources such as "The Guardian" among others. We need to realise that The Guardian is not part of the mainstream media in Australia and to use it in such a way that weakens the message of sources is nothing short of meat pupetry. We need to realise this is a Wikipedia article and we are not here to be part of the pulpit preaching to Peter Dutton's choir. We are here to navigate a short encyclopaedic article based on the truth of what is actually happening. I would ask all involved to divorce themselves of their political view. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:A461:DCB1:69FB:3FEE (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are counting "mainstream", but it surely should include both print and digital publications. The Guardian has extensive Australian coverage, although available only digitally. Among digital news sources, it ranks 7 out of 10 by circulation according to the Nielsen survey. However, a publication's circulation and the quality of its general reporting are not necessarily connected. General reporting in Guardian Australia is of the Guardian's usual high standard. Among other newspapers known to me, the Sydney Daily Telegraph (News Corp, i.e. Murdoch) has a high print circulation but its general news reporting is often sensationalist. As to politics, in the recent Australian federal election almost every News Corp paper trumpeted support for the Coalition, the Sydney Daily Telegraph day after day on its front pages with blasts for the Liberals or against Labor and Greens. I will continue to cite Guardian Australia, as a high-quality news source. Wikiain (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

IP address, if you have specific instances, cite them. The Guardian is a highly respected news outlet and is regarded as WP:RS. I have just counted 16 Guardian citations out of 142, so hardly dominating the sources. You need to be specific if you wish to have a proper discussion about this article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite sure how its not counted as mainstream, its a leftist intelligentsia publication from the UK that until a few years ago had no relevance to the Australian media landscape. Should we wish to cite current and present media it should come from reputable sources that Are Australian as an example, Fairfax, the ABC, and SBS and Newscorp, followed by the other media outlets in Australia Seven, Nine and Ten. There has been a number of entries on this article that are complete and utter crap, meanwhile in the recent days, the statistics I added from significant polling (much larger than the usual Nielson and Ipsos polls) frittered away only because of a significant agenda bias one can assume. The ignorance of over 30,000 people's polling on the ground is almost laughable and there was no synth only a true and proper account to wiki encyclopaedic standard that does not plagarise the original text. That is the point of Wikipedia after all --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian "until a few years ago had no relevance to the Australian media landscape". Quite true, but I have shown that it has established itself in this landscape and you don't challenge the quality of its reporting—which is by Australian staff, including an editor who has several times won top-rank Australian awards for journalism. Quality is all that matters here. Wikiain (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"That is the point of Wikipedia after all". What? To rudely accuse other editors and a journal of bias, and of writing utter crap? Please revert to a more polite tone in your posts here. Your current approach won't achieve anything constructive. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree with Wikian about the Guardian. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hilo, actually, what I said about the Guardian is correct. It has no noteworthy historical connection to the media landscape and certainly not the connection that Fairfax and to a lesser extent News Corp have in Australia. The newspaper of repute in Australia is split between two major print publishers and they are The Age and the Australian. The television news sources of repute in Australia are the national broadcasters ABC and SBS and thereafter. This coming from someone who has a degree in political science and international relations among other qualifications as well as an honours thesis in cultural studies. So I am quite confident in my own ability to make these statements.

As to the comments of "complete and utter crap." I made these statements based on the reality that a hard right agenda has been left to stand for far too long. I'm responsible for taking the White South African Farmers myth which is pure garbage to task for what it is. To be honest there is no theory in it at all and it shouldn't be on Wikipedia as its non-encyclopaedic garbage. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

As to synth changing the tense to suit the content is not synth at all when it maintains the context of the original source or you would be accusing just about every person who has ever written a non-fiction book of synthesis --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just ease back a little in your language please. And pay attention to what other people actually say. You have not refuted what Wikian said about the Guardian, just repeated what you said the first time round. I get the impression you are arguing rather than discussing. As for The Australian, as a Murdoch publication, many see it as anything but a journal of repute. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeating what I said is the refute, The Age is the most reputed newspaper in Australia for academic sources. David Syme would be spinning in his grave for you to suggest otherwise. The Guardian moved into publishing in Australia give or take about 5 years ago. It is a leftist intelligentsia publication from the UK. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

JUST SLOW DOWN! And read what others actually write, carefully. I said absolutely nothing about The Age. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're getting into the old issue here of deciding which side of the fence you lean on. The two major broadsheets in Australia though for the longest time were The Age and The Australian. This historical fact stands by itself. Unfortunately unlike the United States due to the apparent lack of press freedom we do not have an academic journal of repute like the Grey Lady in Australia. Nor do we have a press organisation of such repute as Reuters or the BBC. Unfortunately as a result we have to take to task that we have two newspapers of general popularity and then we have the ABC and SBS. We can't really argue the point about The Australian a lot of people choose to go to it as their main source of credibility no matter what people think of Rupert Murdoch. This page is not about Rupert, its about a guy called Peter. Failing that... What I said... The Guardian has a history of being in Australia for 5 or 6 years and that's about it. It promotes a leftist non-neutral agenda... Unfortunately what people fail to do when they're doing media analysis is reading through the middle wherever it comes from. I have attempted to remove some of the bias here, but people keep coming back with their agenda mongering. So in all practicality, I give up --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian is very obviously a reliable source; as is pointed out above, it may be newish but has certainly established itself on the Australian media scene and it is definitely a top-five media source online. Perhaps it might be helpful, IP, if you listed some of the specific claims or articles you have an issue with; my reading of your original post seems to suggest you feel the Guardian is too sympathetic to Dutton, which surely can't be right ... Frickeg (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This is quite obviously a position where you have to defer to someone with more knowledge and capability than yourself, though this rarely happens on Wiki... Everyone here is an expert about something (apparently). I don't know how you get to the fact that The Guardian is too sympathetic to Peter Dutton especially when I have reiterated its a leftist intelligentsia tabloid. If anything on the basis of that, it's far too sympathetic to Labor and particularly The Greens. I'm not sure how you can use "Mumbrella" as a justification for your beliefs about anything. See this is what happens when you haven't been to school to do source analysis properly.

1) I have listed several issues, one of those is the continued revert of my edit in what is "claimed" to be synth where I have posted two separate citations and one that is simply a quote that has been changed from first to third person voice to suit the rest of the article. I have listed those sources to add neutrality to the point of view that GetUp should be taken to heal. This is entirely problematic on the basis of things... We have a bunch of right-wingers who want to label an advocacy group/think tank as an "activist" group while trying to also state a survey contingent upon the results of more than 30,000 people is irrelevant.

2) We have issues going on that far-right meat puppets keep trying to find ways to excuse far-right extremist views about white supremacy in this article. As I have reiterated countless times, there is no theory about White South African farmers. The Suidlaners myth has been discredited by every notable publication in the world, and perhaps the most credible news source in the world, the New York Times. to be honest it doesn't deserve to be here. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. I suggest you give us a proposal of what you want to include and we'll see what we can do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

How's about you read this rather than assuming you know best and locking another person out of an article. You wonder why people develop a syndrome where they give up. Where common sense is replaced by people who think they are gatekeepers to all knowledge on Wikipedia you end up with this problem repeatedly. As this is going nowhere I am going to take the "whatever" approach and walk away. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:D52B:FCAF:64B5:7BFB (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you stupid? The Guardian is quite obviously a leftist rag FFS! grow Up!!! 2401:D002:E504:2800:F583:D2D4:EA08:D8CF (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that objective assessment. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's on WP:RS 20WattSphere (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Sayanim

It's fairly obvious that Dutton is a Sayanim for Mossad - he only defends israel and hates palestine, lebanon and Gaza. This neeeds to be a addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:D002:E504:2800:F583:D2D4:EA08:D8CF (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that supports your assertion. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Legal action against Dutton

I don't know if any of these sources are reliable or fulfil other WP rules, so I thought I should put these here. Dutton has been taken to the Australian Human Rights Commission for violations of the Racial Discrimination Act re his comments about the war in the Middle East. See here, here and here. I'm also not sure if this can be put in an existing section or a new one should be started. If it pans out the way I think it might (yes I know I'm crystal balling) this could be a big story, but naturally we don't know yet. I'll leave it to more knowledgeable editors. BerleT (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Factional alignment

User:ITBF has removed Dutton's factional alignment from the page multiple times.

It is trivial to find multiple sources, including from last week, describing his alignment as National Right (Liberal Party of Australia). https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/liberal-moderates-were-in-the-winner-s-circle-under-turnbull-it-s-a-different-story-now-20241212-p5ky21.html

To avoid edit warring, please provide any reason this should be excluded. 20WattSphere (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not removed his factional alignment from the article at all – it is included in the fourth paragraph of the lede and in the #Political positions section. I was actually the editor that added reference to his factional alignment in the first place. I reverted Wistherdisc's edits because it refers to Dutton as leader of a "far right" faction, which I don't believe is accurate (and was not mentioned in the source provided). This was accompanied by references to Dutton being nicknamed "Potato" and "Voldemort", and to him being untrustworthy; these do not seem like good-faith or WP:NPOV edits. I do object to Dutton's faction being mentioned in the first sentences of the article – I'm not aware of any other articles on Australian politicians that do this, even in the ALP where factions are much more well defined. It's given due weight in its current location in the article.

So this is a very different reason. Your edit summaries suggested you didn't trust the sources.

Mentioning a politician's relative position in the party seems lede-worthy to me, to put their actions into context. I thought this was the case for most Aus politicians but I've had a quick look and it's only some, e.g. Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Chris Bowen. Granted, they're ALP, but I don't think what party you're in contradicts the principle that it's useful for readers to know upfront where a politician stands.

I've surveyed about 5 sources for the National Right. All of them refer to the party being the furthest right in the party - "hard right" is generally used rather than "far right". Why can't we just link the faction?

On being untrustworthy - I see you removed a poll indicating he wasn't trusted by the public. I think this is worth including, especially if it spurred a media conversation. The more information the better in my view. 20WattSphere (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Photos.

What is with the constant updating of his photos. We should be using the best quality and most professional photo, not the most recent with a weeks difference

DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 05:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The photo I've just restored is the best photo. Not only is it more recent, but Dutton's face is looking towards the camera, unlike the previous photo in which Dutton's head was at a sharp angle. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks man DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 09:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Ps, if and when he becomes PM (which looks likely at present) I'm sure he'll have an official portrait done and I'm pretty sure that someone will edit that in as the infobox image. TarnishedPath^talk 09:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that would be ideal. My main concern is that people will throw in whatever photo they want to make him look stupid or whatever depending on what their perspective. All I'm trying to say is that if Albo deserves a professional looking photo, then so does Dutton. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 09:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think he looks stupid at all in the photo I edited in and Albanese has had an official portrait done as he's prime minister. It's easy to use an official portrait when has been done. We'll have to wait until if and when that occurs. TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)