Talk:Friendlyjordies

Does this article fail to meet Wikipedia standards?

I believe there are issues with the impartiality of the 'YouTube career' section of this article. Do tenuous, retaliatory accusations from a single individual (J Barilaro) warrant multiple mentions? "....Barilaro later described as having "racist undertones"." "....John Barilaro describing the comments as "desperate". Another racism accusation present in the article is from an anonymous source.

Jordan Shanks is an increasingly prominent independent journalist in a country with a powerful media monopoly. Uncritical repetition of opinions/criticism about Jordan Shanks that originate via hegemonic corporate media raise issues of neutrality, scandal mongering and lack of variety in sources. The bias I perceived in this article prompted me to create my first Wikipedia account and start this discussion. Flowerconfession (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I can appreciate your hesitancy regarding the impartiality of the section; gauging bias is always complicated by the nature of articles regarding online figures often sourcing from their own content. However, I don't think on this occassion there are any significant issues with the article. I'm not aware of the extent of your experience on wikipedia, but the section in question seems to adequately adhere to WP:NPOV. As for the multiple mentions of J Barilaro, he appears to be a relevant figure of both circumstances in which he was quoted. ƒin (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In a country where Murdoch monopoly controls every facet of the public conversation, many hit pieces sprout against anyone who threatens the establishment. I agree that this article is not properly balanced and needs a major rewrite to offer a counter perspective inline with WP:DUE. Melmann 07:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to rewrite the section in more balanced tone. I've mainly focusing on adding context and including Shank's response where non-primary sources could be found for such. I also think that the sentence about Trade unions is almost trivia (Shanks is very open about his support for Australian Labor and Trade unions) but since it was sourced and balanced, I've left it. Melmann 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems bizarre to me that the ACTU stuff comes right after mentioning his reviews of wine. I would suggest bulking out his youtube section with information about his channel, early videos, etc. And moving the council of trade unions stuff under personal life, where you link it to his political views. Think, I think, would create substantial more balance. Happy to help out with this. Nauseous Man (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

No. The reference to the ACTU is related to a YouTube video. It's not personal life.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the points made above represent valid NPOV issues, and I will remove the tag unless there is a better justification.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Those NPOV issues are still very much existing and ongoing. The current version is somewhat of an improvement, but the article is very much unduly balanced in favour of Shank's critics while barely acknowledging slew of direct and implicit endorsements that the he has received. I mean, just look at the section mentioning Kevin Rudd, former prime minister no less, who has collaborated with Shanks, and yet only mention of such a notable collaborator is presented as if Shanks is some embattled renegade making a living at the edges of Australia's media when Shanks recieves more views than most of these supposedly 'reliable sources' that we have in this article. Melmann 21:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Including critics is not a violation of the NPOV policy.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Including only critics, which was what this article was until very recently, is as it is unduly negative. Melmann 07:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. You're being over-sensitive to criticism.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

No one is stopping anyone else from adding pro-Shanks material to this article, so I don't think there is a genuine NPOV dispute here. There are plenty of critics of Shanks who are not from Murdoch media: [1][2][3][4][5] Apart from Rudd, there don't seem many people endorsing Shanks. But that's not an NPOV issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything like that. My usual concern with BLP articles on minor celebrities is that they are used as vehicles for self-promotion by the subject or those acting on their behalf and there is a tendency to remove any negative coverage. The article seems fairly even-handed in its content. I'm still not entirely happy about the sourcing. Where did that birthdate come from, for example? --Pete (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Then prove the at the edits are made for self-promotion. If you cannot, then your concerns are irrelevant and overblown. Melissia (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

I removed Independent Australia as a source because: A. They are not a reliable source (see discussion here) and B. They cannot be used as a BLP source in any case.

User:Melmann reverted this with some comments about Australian Press Council membership. That's as may be, but unless I see some super-radical changes at IA - like not being an opinion blog, for starters - they aren't a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

There are a number of less-dodgy but still unsuitable sources being used in this article. I'll accept reviews of shows from sources that do is as their business, but since when is Crikey a reliable source for biographical details? --Pete (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

In regards to IA, I disagree almost entirely with that conversation, but I don't really have the energy right now to contest it so have it your way. Crikey is reliable, of course, especially to balance previous revisions of that article which was prior to that basically a collection of greatest hits of Murdoch smear artists. See also propaganda model. Melmann 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to rewrite our BLP policy specifically referred to at the top of this page. Here is an extract: The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources --Pete (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

IA is not a tabloid. It's contributors include, among others, former ABC journalists, academic from RMIT University and Greenpeace Chief Executive Officer and Sydney University professor. One of its contributors was a literal professor of journalism. I have no idea where you're getting all this false info about IA. Melmann 22:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

IA's "contributors", last time I looked, included writers for other outlets whose work was lifted and republished. It has a long history of shady journalism and is not regarded as a reliable source, especially not for BLP material. We must use reliable sources for BLP and I urge you to review wikipolicy on this. --Pete (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the source is about Queensland's Fixated Persons Unit, not NSW's.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: Statement was meant to illustrate that Fixated Persons Units in general are problematic, as the source predicted its use against government's critic 3 years prior to this incident. Statement makes no specific claims about QLD or NSW FPU, just FPUs in general. Melmann 07:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: I am very much aware of WP:BLP and WP:RS, what I disagree with are your entirely unproven claims that IA is not reliable. Serious accusations, such as plagiarism, require some proof, rather than just casting vague aspersions, don't you agree? Melmann 07:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss the points raised, that's fine. Some people use emotion instead of reason to inform their thinking. I'm not going to judge. IA has been discussed many times in the past on RSN and elsewhere. It's never emerged as a RS and certainly not for BLP. --Pete (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: I would like to invite you to continue assuming good faith and refrain from making value judgements on how emotional or not my reasoning is that feels a bit to close to WP:NPA ('Comment on content, not on the contributor').
Despite claiming me too emotional to engage in reasonable discussion, you made plagiarism accusations that you refuse to substantiate and are using weasel words to claim prior consensus when you should well know that consensus can change and what matters is the consensus that we are trying to build now. I have tried to build consensus and to follow WP:BLP by acting out of abundance of caution and accepting removal of the contested source and now I would like for you to substantiate your serious accusation (for which you could be sued by IA in Australia under same overreaching and broken defamation laws as FJ). Melmann 07:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

You're not doing your case much good by cramming words into my mouth that were never there. Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. Let me put it another way. I am quite certain that IA's contributors are not the touchstone of the publication's journalistic standards. I check canonical links and I am satisfied that many of IA's contributors publish elsewhere first and are later picked up under a CC license. I could create my own blog and do the same and using the logic you are trying to bamboozle me with, that would make my blog a reliable source.

Unless you come up with checkable facts, then no matter how forcefully you present your own opinion, it's not going to convince me of anything. If anything, the more bluster and emotion, the less I'll listen. Because if you had any facts you would use them. My own opinion isn't important, in any case, for exactly the same reason. What is important is Wikipedia's BLP and sourcing policy. Several of the sources used in this article are weak and if we can find better ones, we would have a better article. --Pete (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

And yet you simply ignore the facts that don't serve you. My claims that IA is generally reliable are based on: a)IA is a member of Australian Press Council b) most of their their contributors are sufficiently credentialed (once again, how is journalistic work of a journalism professor not reliable enough) c) there is no evidence that IA prints or is likely to print material that is of substantially lower quality than other reliable sources d) properly republishing original reporting by others is commonly done as many reliable sources we use republish from AP or Reuters Thompson (and CC while following the license is not plagiarism, what a strange claim). Those are the facts.
Also, continuing to claim that I am somehow 'too emotional' and you're a bastion of disinterested reasoning is uncalled for and I will ask you once again, in spirit of WP:AGF to refrain from passing value judgements on other editors as it is not helpful. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree, as we are, and assuming other person is not reasonable just because they disagree is not in the spirit of two relatively experienced editors trying to be WP:HERE. Melmann 15:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Just saying the same things with more force merely underscores my point. Cheers. --Pete (talk)!~

Fortunately, we do not need to worry about whether Independent Australia is a reliable source or not, since its inclusion here is to create original synthesis. Sources that do not discuss Shanks or Langker cannot be used to support an argument, or suggest anything, about the arrest of Langker. This article is not about the "Fixated Persons Unit" or its appropriate use. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's even worse, because it's not the Fixated Persons Unit, but one from another state.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's so, this is exactly why original synthesis is not permitted. If there's been a mistake to be made about which police unit was involved, it should be made by the sources. Not by this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no original synthesis. The source said that the 'Fixated Persons Unit' is Orwellian, and that was paraphrased to 'potential to stifle political speech', which is a fair paraphrasing of the source's claims. Also, while initial incident is relating to QLD case, 'Fixated Persons Units' are substantially similar across all Australian police jurisdiction which have them. The second source provided (Crikey, not IA) specifically discusses NSW FPU in closing too, such as this quote: "So far no oversight reporting mechanisms have been publicly detailed for QFTAC, NSW’s Fixated Persons Unit, or Victoria’s new Fixated Threat Assessment Centre." clearly extending its reporting to NSW FPU.Melmann 15:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what original synthesis is. You haven't provided anything that connects the 'Orwellian' criticism of the 'Fixated Persons Unit' to the arrest of Langker. This is what is meant by original synthesis. The connection between criticism of it, and the arrest of Langker, cannot be made in this article. You need a source that does this. Otherwise the connection has been synthesised by the editors of this article, and the reader has nothing to verify that it is accurate, relevant or valid in this particular case. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not connect Langker to IA's criticism. Langker is not part of the criticism that FPU receives from the source. I simply provided criticism of FPU that is contextually relevant. FPU's arrest of Langker is one viewpoint of the issue (FPU claims Lanker was stalking), and criticism of FPU as Orwellian is balancing it (criticism claims FPU is suppressing free speech). If anything, I think you need to review WP:BALANCE. If I had said: 'FPU's arrest of Langker was Orwellian.' that would be original synthesis because it is an original statement tying prior coverage of FPU with this new incident that that the source does not cover. Note that the sentence I wrote in the article has FPU as the subject. The two statements are contextually related but semantically independent. If your incorrect definition of original synthesis was actually applied, no article could have contextual explanations or two balanced set of facts because having more than one fact at a time is automatically your definition of original synthesis. Melmann 19:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Editors aren't sources. If you want the article to say something, find a reliable source that says it. We're an encyclopaedia, not an opinion blog. --Pete (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"I simply provided criticism of FPU that is contextually relevant." = Original Synthesis. It is your determination that it is contextually relevant. The sources certainly don't say it is. It may not be. The criticisms may be completely irrelevant in this situation. Just because you are not stating that "the arrest was Orwellian" doesn't make any difference. By tacking on this information you are clearly leading the reader to the conclusion that there is a relationship. Otherwise, why is it here, in this article? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything that has been said above on the other topics, but I do agree that this would fall under synthesis. As Langker was not explicitly connected to this incident in the IA source, it cannot be done in this article. I do believe though that new articles, directly discussing this incident and the use of FPU have been published in the past day. Perhaps these sources could be looked into for use instead. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 14:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: I still don't fully see the logic of your argument (that's not to say that you're wrong, but that your argument does not track for me personally), but I will accept the consensus against me that it was original synthesis.
I do agree with you that by putting the information there leads the reader to connect the two (else why put it?), but from my perspective it was putting two independent contextually related facts next to each other. It seems that your reading precludes most contextual clarification because choosing to put any set of facts together is original synthesis (the very choice of including one source and not another is original synthesis because you're building a narrative by selecting how the article flows).
But yeah, in practical sense, I am deferring to consensus on this point. Melmann 16:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Think of it this way... An extreme and fictional example to illustrate;

"Before attaining fame, Jack FamousPerson worked as a teacher in Major High School.[1] Teachers at Major High School were later criticised in the 1990s for abusing pupils.[2]"

Two sourced, accurate and independent statements. But it suggests that Jack FamousPerson was in some way connected to the abuse, when in fact he may not have worked there at the time. The school criticised may even be in a completely different town, and a Wikipedia editor has mistakenly thought they are the same place. This is why a source that connects the two facts must be cited. The connection cannot be synthesised in the Wikipedia article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Source removal

@Skyring: Please stop removing sources without discussing why. Saying 'Not RS for BLP' is not explaining, and unexplained content removal is vandalism.Melmann 16:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

At the top of this page is a big prominent warning that this is a BLP article. It has a link to the policy. Read the bloody thing, will ya? --Pete (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment

An argument could be made that there has been a "Streisand Effect" associated with the recent JB interactions. However, hard evidence about the number of subscribers is somewhat sparse.

The Wayback Machine has one snapshot of FriendlyJordies, dated July 14 2020:

   https://web.archive.org/web/20200714075544/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendlyjordies

The InfoBox associated with that snapshot states that FJ has:

   Subscribers    <433,000    (14/07/20)

Apparently, the InfoBox has been updated as of 1 June 2021, and shows the YouTube information as:

   Subscribers    501,000    (June 2021) [1]

With Citation [1] being: "About FriendlyJordies": https://www.youtube.com/user/friendlyjordies/about

My main idea is that the subscriber count crossing the half-a-million threshold is worthy of some text in the article. I believe that some of the MSM articles from earlier this year/late last year noted that he had something above 400,000 subscribers, but my poor memory suggests 430,000-470,000.

If there has been a sharp increase recently, this may be worth noting.

---

Replying to myself re YouTube numbers: As at Saturday, 19 Jun 2021, YouTube lists 514k followers. Averaging 13k increase over 19 days, this is 680 additional followers per day. If 18 days, average is about 720 per day. Main point is that FJ is creating significant interest, which is turning into a measurable "followers" metric.

Thanks for putting "501k" in the Summary paragraph. Perhaps just say "over half a million" followers, since the change above is non-trivial. Perhaps review the numbers and the summary at the start of July: 720 per day, times 30 days in June, gives over 20k added in June alone.

193.115.124.80 (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

---

115.64.197.209 (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Further update: The Federal Parliament "Online Safety Bill 2021", which has been moving along for roughly two years, is now suddenly being rushed through Second Reading in the Senate by the Government.

During a Debate in the Senate about the Bill, Sen. Louise Pratt explicitly included a reference that this bill could enable, at a Federal level, powers such as the "Fixated Persons Unit" powers in existence in Queensland and NSW:

   [...] Also consider the case of John Barilaro, the New South Wales Deputy Premier, who is reported to have pursued YouTube comedian Friendlyjeordies with charges of stalking and intimidation. According to reports, detectives from New South Wales police fixated persons unit, acting on a complaint by Barilaro, arrested Kristo Langker at his family home in Dulwich Hill on 4 June and charged him with two offences. He was charged with two counts of stalking and intimidating with an intent to cause fear or physical or mental harm. Here we see that, given the provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme go to related concepts of menace, harass or offend, it is simply not beyond the realm of contemplation to imagine a politician asserting that a journalist, a satirist or a comedian might fall foul of these provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme, even with clause 233 on the implied freedom of political communication. So we believe there can and must be greater transparency for review and oversight to ensure that this scheme is working to get the balance of human rights and freedom of expression right. [...]

115.64.197.209 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Including a sentence saying that at the FPU is receiving scrutiny in the parliament by Sen. Louise Pratt seems like a good idea from where I'm standing. There are comments by Helen Dalton from NSW legislature and Kevin Rudd (who seems to have donated to Shank's legal defence fund). Does anyone oppose including those, with sourcing of course?Melmann 10:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about friendlyjordies, not the FPU system in various jurisdictions. Where is the relevance? --Pete (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Author of the "Sen. Pratt" comment here; I agree with Pete that MelMann has somewhat confused State and Federal juristictions in his comment above. Apparently (no citation, sorry), the Federal party(s) are looking to "clear the decks" -- backlog of legislation remaining to be passed -- ahead of a Federal electtion. A side-effect of passing this legislation quickly -- allowing only a few (eight) days for Debate -- is that it may provide additional mechanisms to attack online critique by people such as FJ.

However, Sen. Jess Walsh, as part of the Debate on this Second Rading in the Senate regarding this bill, has this explicit criticism of "eight days" to comprehed the bill and over 370 comments, resulting in 56 items warranting further study/debate:

    It has been over 2½ years since the Briggs review recommended a single up-to-date online safety act. Let's look at what has happened since the Briggs review. It was back in October 2018 that Lynelle Briggs handed down the review of the Australia's online safety laws. In May 2019, during the election, the government made its first promise to introduce a new online safety act. In July 2019, the minister stood up in question time and again promised that an online safety act was coming. In September 2019, in response to Labor's questions about online hate speech, racism and the rise of right-wing extremism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist attack, the minister stood up in this parliament and yet again promised that a new online safety act was coming. In December 2019, there was another announcement, another promise, that an online safety act was coming. In September 2020, when asked about what they were doing to curb graphic content on social media in the wake of a self-harm video on Facebook and TikTok, they stood up again and promised a new online safety act. In October 2020, this time in an op-ed in the west, there was another promise that an online safety act was on the way. Then in December 2020, just two days before Christmas, this government finally released their exposure draft, with the consultation process ending only eight business days before they tabled the bill in the parliament.

   The government is asking us to believe that it took two years to draft a bill but only eight days to read and consider 376 submissions. This short time frame at the end of a long drawn-out process has undermined confidence in the government's exposure draft, and stakeholders are therefore rightly concerned that submissions have not been given proper consideration. The department confirmed that, from 376 submissions, they had identified 56 issues that warranted further consideration. From those 56 issues, only seven amendments have been made. So the government has spent years talking about this bill just to rush through the work at the last minute.

193.115.124.80 (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion not appropriate

As per the notice at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friendlyjordies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

It's always interesting when an IP editor gets involved in a BLP article. If you are the subject of the article, say so. We are here to help present an encyclopaedia article in the best possible format, and your help in finding sources can be gold. But this talk page isn't about the subject and general discussion. It's about the article. We can't do anything about the subject, but we can do a lot about how we report it. --Pete (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, original "IP" contributor here (my ISP doles out my on-line IP on a session-by-session basis, which is why it can vary). The "notes/hints" that led me to the sources above (including Kevin Rudd's "Why I donated to friendlyjordies’ legal defence fund" blog post) mostly came via Reddit snippets (r/Australia, to be exact).

One final facet of the "Online Safety Bill 2021" that concernes me (in its current form) is that it potentially reduces the time limit for a Contributor/Provider to remove flagged content from 48 hours to 24: Part 5, Section 65, Item 1(g)(i). I am a newbie to Wikipedia editing (which is why I've buried most of my contributions in a "talk" page). However, I feel that the items I've raised are non-trivial to the question of government/internet interaction in Australia, which is why I've pointed them out. Is there a better way of managing this (e.g. start a new page for the proposed Bill?)

In closing, thank you so much for your tolerance of my input.

193.115.76.189 (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is some direct relevance to the subject of this article, and the Commonwealth's reluctance to pass bills of attainder makes this unlikely, then discussion on a specific piece of legislation is inappropriate here. A more general topic such as Online Safety might be more appropriate. Why not seek advice at WP:AWNB? --Pete (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Southern European heritage

[Removed from top of "Sourcing" discussion above. New posts need to be at the bottom.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)]

Saw "citation needed" on the statement "commentators have noted Shanks' partially Southern European heritage" and produced a citation of a commentator doing exactly that. I hope that people here aren't essentially arguing "only Rupert Murdoch-owned sources count", in the discussion below, because that would violate the NPoV policy of Wikipedia. When a company owns a near-monopoly on the press, claiming opposition sources are not good sources destroys the neutral point of view. --Melissia (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

On this point, this says "his family heritage is both Bosnian and Croatian, as well as Scottish". This say, "In a recent video he pointed out his family were migrants from the same region of Italy as Mr Barilaro". I think these are probably better sources than a comedian on YouTube calling Shanks a "wog". But I'm not sure how this counters the accusation that Shanks is racist.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't, and I don't care either way-- to me the entire "racist!!!" debacle looks like little more than yet another corrupt politician getting defensive over criticism, a standard tactic by politicians to deflect from their own wrongdoings. More importantly, I was filling a citation needed on the phrase "commentators have noted Shanks' partially Southern European heritage"... with a commentator noting his partially Southern European heritage. If no sources are adequate for you to accept as a citation, you should remove the line from the article. --Melissia (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There are editors here who have interpreted WP:RS and WP:BLP as "only Murdoch media" and have been vandalising the article removing good sources. Since subject himself has stated his origin as Croatian and Bosnian, and such sources are allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF (neither exceptional nor unduly self serving) and given how long Italians historically held eastern Adriatic, it is entirely possible that Shanks' ancestors could be Scottish, Italian, Bosnian and Croatian. I hope we remember that an individual has many ancestors. This is all moot however, since MOS:IDENTITY identity says that when there is disagreement among sources, just use what the subject claims to be. Hence the all-encomapsing terms 'partially Southern European'.
As for the purpose of the statement, it is there do offer due balance. Accusations of racism in BLPs are serious, and we must balance it with relevant published facts. While I agree that saying 'I can't be racist against my own race' is kinda weak argument, there is a perception widely held that such alleged racism is less serious when the individual is using alleged racism against the members of their own in-group. If a subject of BLP has been accused of a serious act such as racism, we must at the very least mention the defence that the subject used (regardless of how weak it is). Melmann 13:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

What source are you referring to?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Murdoch media monopoly

There have been two comments referring to the Murdoch media "monopoly" or "near-monopoly". Firstly, this is an exaggeration. There are many news outlets in Australia which are not owned by Murdoch: the ABC, Nine Fairfax, Channel 7, Channel 10, SBS, The Guardian, The Saturday Newspaper etc etc. Secondly, how is this relevant? As far as I can see, we currently only cite Murdoch media sources four times in this article. Why keep harping on about Murdoch?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There's already an article about this on Wikipedia-- "Mass Media in Australia". Murdoch's companies own roughly 64% of media in the country, and of the other 1/3rd, the majority are owned by Fairfax. Combined they own and control over 90% of media in the country. Thus, "near-monopoly". A duopoly isn't really much better when the interests of the two companies are aligned. If you are upset by these numbers and think they are wrong, go argue with the editors of that page. --Melissia (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

64% of metropolitan newspaper circulation, not 64% of media.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Murdoch media controls the tone and topic of nation-wide coverage, all the major media plays to their fiddle. This is particularly notable on this topic where any criticism is carried but nothing other of relevance is mentioned (such as concerns around free speech). At Wikipedia, we are here to try to be neutral and balanced, not to carry water for Murdoch editorial policy. Melmann 13:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

What a load of steaming horse crap. This isn't an article about media ownership and policy. This is about some chap and we are guided by RS and BLP whatever our own personal opinions might be. If we have a good source for a statement about this guy, then end of story. If we are instead relying on a blog or some YouTube podcast or whatever, then we have a problem. Sources like The Guardian or the ABC are difinitely not Murdoch but are also well-regarded reliable sources. Use whatever RS floats your boat.

I'm at the point where I think the subject of the article or their agents may be actively trying to make our article into self-promotion and a wheelbarrow to push some partiucular political view. That's not what we are about. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: I can't shake the feeling that you're just going down WP:TEND trying to see how many of them you check off in relation to a single article. Absolutely dishonest behaviour, trying to define editing in terms of picking sides when multiple editors have expressed concerns about neutrality, which you refuse to engage with. If you really think that I've cultivated my presence on Wikipedia in good standing for 12 years just so I can come here and meatpuppet for a YouTuber then I really have no idea what to tell you. If I'm batting for anything here, it's for Wikipedia's editorial policy on neutrality, rather than taking editorial direction from most recent smears of Murdoch machine, which is something you seem to be committed to. And we wonder why we are struggling to recruit and retain editors here with characters like you trying to own the article and the content. Melmann 12:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I've told you before, Melmann. Don't cram words into my mouth that were never there. I didn't say any of that "If you really think…" stuff. No, I don't really think what you say I do. Grow up. --Pete (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Melmann, you might be an experienced editor, but your contributions to this page could fairly be described as a "load of steaming horse crap".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Look back at the page a while later, and see people throwing around "load of steaming horse crap" and other confrontational posts that skirt the guidelines for acceptable talk page materaial. I'm reverting your removal of the citation. Please do better both to conform to the NPOV policy as well as the Talk Page guidelines. Melissia (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Whilst I, for one, deeply deplore such rude and obnoxious language in our genteel discussion may I quietly and respectfully request all editors to be aware of the requirements for reliable sourcing in biographical articles and not to use sources best described as horseshit? --Pete (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Calling a source "horseshit" is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and not an opinion I give any more weight to than I would random comments on twitter. Likewise, the conclusory argument of "the source is an agent of the person trying to puff them up!", which has been a common refrain in this discussion, is utterly unconvincing without evidence. No evidence of a conflict of interest has been presented, and thus it is ignored. Melissia (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

As for your argument that the subject is not notable, I would counter-argue that a political critic who was arrested or had their spokesperson arrested by a counter-terrorism unit at the request of the head of state of the government they're criticized fits Wikipedia notability requirements. Plenty of long-standing articles on Wikipedia cover people whose primary, and sometimes even sole, notability is being arrested for political reasons. This is particularly the case when the event in question has caused international coverage of the subject-- including for example an article from small town news papers such as Illinois News Today. I wouldn't use that particular source because of its low quality, but the existence of it along with articles from international sources such as The Conversation or The Guardian and so on make another example of a notability argument. If you wish to have the article deleted as not notable, you need better arguments than the immensely lackluster ones presented. Otherwise, your argument has no place here. Melissia (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've gone through and examined the various sources. If we are making claims about Shanks or his associates, we need reliable sources. There is no room for prevarication on this. We need good sources for material about a living person. This does not cover everything in the article; a review of a show can come from a relevant source such as a freebie newspaper or blog so long as we don't rely on the same source for statements about a living person.

Another problem is the use of primary sources. Often these require interpretation skills which our readers may not have. It is far better to direct readers to a reliable secondary source making the same claim.

I am concerned that this biographical article is being used as puffery to boost a career rather than anything of actual notability. If it were notable, a solid source would have said it, instead of a ragtag collection of blogs and podcasts and such. Nor is just getting a mention in the Sydney Morning Herald a guarantee of notability. You get all sorts of ephemera in daily papers and we don't slavishly fill up Wikipedia with the daily news every day. We aren't a newspaper, we are an encyclopaedia aimed at longer lasting material. --Pete (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: You continue with this claim that anyone who disagrees with you is clearly COI when you have absolutely zero evidence for your WP:ASPERSIONS. I would understand this line of argument if you were dealing with IPs or new accounts, but you're not, and you need to stop with this line that anyone who's not dancing to you fiddle is clearly Shank's stooge. Melmann 17:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I reject your confected and contorted argument. You are seeing things that are not there. --Pete (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I am all for improving the quality of sources, but removing uncontroversial content simply because the source isn't great, or removing cites and replacing them with "cite needed", is obviously a retrograde step and not improving the article. For instance, you removed the cite supporting the lead sentence "an Australian political commentator, comedian and YouTuber." Are you challenging this statement? Do you believe it violates WP:BLP? How? If not, then improving the article would be finding a better source, not removing the existing one. Similarly you removed the sentence detailing some of the people he has interviewed. Again, are you challenging this? You've removed it before saying it is of no significance, but the notability of the people he has interviewed plays a large part in establishing his notability. Removing it does not improve the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you apparently didn't read my notes above, or check the wikipolicy referred to. I don't think I've removed any uncontroversial content, just the inappropriate sources. Find reliable sources, simple as that. In the meantime, kindly do not the fuck restore sources that do not meet the standards required by WP:BLP; that is vandalism. --Pete (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Having regard to the title of this section, whether a source is Murdoch-based or not is immaterial. I regard The Guardian and the ABC as reliable sources, for example, and given their mild left-wing bent probably a far better fit for this subject than The Australian or similar. --Pete (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Escape Orbit, you say of me above "you removed the sentence detailing some of the people he has interviewed." Please indicate precisely where in this diff I have removed any such sentence. I believe you are in error in your statement. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, that was a mistake where I misread the diffs. My apologies. I've left you message on your talk page regarding your misreading of WP:BLP, your encroachment on WP:AGF and my concern over the neutrality of your approach to the article subject. In the meanwhile, how is removing sources, regardless of their quality, and leaving the article unsourced, an improvement? They're are not providing verifiability on anything that is challenged or controversial, so what actually is the problem? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

See above for my concerns about puffery. I regard a lot of this this article as poorly-sourced advertising for the subject or the tribal political views espoused. I have repeatedly mentioned this. The correct place for an attack on Nazism is not the Winston Churchill article; using Wikipedia as an extension of the subject's own personal political crusade is inappropriate unless we have some solid sources. I have also mentioned primary sources; for a lot of this material the only way of checking what the second-rate sources claim is to go to the subject's own published work and Wikipedia is not in the business of providimng free advertising for both subject and third parties. If these things are notable and worthy of inclusion, then they will have been mentioned by a worthy source. You will note the confusion engendered by some of the provocative titles of sources; by including them as sources we are in effect lending them legitimacy. Not exactly making those same claims in Wikivoice, but not that far off. We can do better.

I have removed your post from my talk page. The best place for discussion is right here. You err in some of your assumptions, for example I was not referring to the subject of this article as some wanker on YouTube; I am sure that their creative work is authentic and entertsining. We cannot, however, regard people with blogs or opinion channels of whatever media to serve as reliable sources for BLP articles. You mention notability above as a reason why Wikipedia should provide high webvalue global coverage of this guy, and I think we need better sourcing.

My long-established process for dealing with poorly-sourced material that is likely supported by better sources is to leave the material intact, usually with a "cite needed" template. If it's outrageous or likely false, I'll remove the material. Generally someone with an interest in either the subject or a good encyclopaedia will find a good source, driven by productive urges as I trust we all are. Removing material apparently provided in good faith is disruptive without good reason. My problem is usually with sourcing, which is what drew me here in the first place. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

"The best place for discussion is right here." I guess you forgot this when you left this message on my talk page suggesting that reverting your edit was vandalism. Not the best way to encourage discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Over emphasis on legal matters

Presumably this is an article about a person - though it appears to be advertising for the channel and its income, rather than about the person per se - so why is so much of it taken up with breathless news about trivial legal matters? --Pete (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Part of the reason for his notability
• Reliable sources cover the legal issues
• "advertising", "breathless news", "trivial legal matters" ???

Burrobert (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skyring: The article is in-line with consensus on how to cover notable YouTubers. The legal matters are obviously notable, of course, and there is reliable sourcing, so I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. Melmann 09:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources for your comments, please. --Pete (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"Obviously notable", you claim. Reliable sourcing doesn't make something notable - that's an easy trap to fall into. We don't add in the entire content of every major news outlet every day, for example. WP:NOTNEWS applies, as well as WP:SOAP. If we are going to report on every filing and event in the subject's ongoing legal dramas then the legal issues section will increasingly dominate an article which is little more than a stub to begin with. This raises the question, what is the subject "obviously notable" for, precisely? Running a YouTube channel or getting into legal trouble? Looking at the amount of space we are devoting to the two topics this is already a consideration, and if every routine or trivial filing an what is bound to be a protracted legal saga is "obviously notable" and added without question then we have a growing imbalance in our coverage. I think we'd be very hard-pressed to find a biographical article on Wikipedia where we spend more time talking about a creative's legal woes than on the content actually created by that person. You see my point?

Turning to John Barilaro, a senior NSW politician, we find that friendlyjordie's legal problems occupy about half as much space in the article as the politician's entire political career, and more space than we devote to the subject's actual life events outside politics. Is Barilaro notable for being a notable political figure or for being the butt of friendlyjordie's comic attacks? John Lennon famously claimed that his band was bigger than Jesus, a statement which did not go down well, and we seem to be seeing the same sort of thing going on here. --Pete (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Removing appropriate content and/or reliably sourced and non-tangential information, from an article simply to reduce length without moving that content to an appropriate article either by merging or splitting requires consensus.
• "We don't add in the entire content of every major news outlet every day" - are you claiming this is what has happened here?
• What in particular are you referring to in these statements: "report on every filing and event in the subject's ongoing legal dramas" and "every routine or trivial filing"?
• "friendlyjordie's legal problems occupy about half as much space in the article as the politician's entire political career" - aren't you comparing two different articles here? Why is what happens on Barilaro's page relevant to what happens on friendlyjordie's page?
• "more space than we devote to the subject's actual life events outside politics" - are you talking about Barilaro or Shanks? If you are talking about Shanks, why should we compare the amount of space devoted to the Barilaro events to Shanks' life "outside politics". Political commentary is in his description.
• "we spend more time talking about a creative's legal woes than on the content actually created by that person": For reference, here are my estimates of the number of words devoted to each section (based on an estimate of 30 words per full line):

Youtube 75 words

Clive Palmer 176 words

Environment 125 words

Barilaro 246 words

Rudd 92 words

• The John Lennon reference is off-topic, however, since it is an important part of our cultural heritage, it should be noted that his statement caused no controversy when originally published in the London newspaper The Evening Standard in March 1966, but drew angry reactions from Christian communities when republished in the United States in July 1966. He was forced to apologise by his manager and said "I was not saying we are greater or better" but was commenting on how other people viewed and popularised the Beatles. In a typically brilliant Lennon stroke, he subverted the whole apology by adding "yap, yap" to the end of it. Burrobert (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see someone knows their Beatles. I recently viewed the clip beginning with Epstein.[6] It was great publicity - people were buying records just to destroy them. A certain connection here, I think.

Thanks for the word counts. The two largest subsections of the "YouTube career"section are "Legal dispute with Clive Palmer" and "Lawsuit by John Barilaro and producer arrest", easily eclipsing all else. And yes, the spillover into the John Barilaro article is relevant; Wikipedia seems to be giving undue coverage to a YouTube channel and using routine legal measures to keep the story alive. Barilaro's legal team has responded, effectively saying that Shanks' "truth defence" is hyperbole and rubbish. Doubtless Shanks will come back with their own broadside and are we really expected to cover all this back and forth at increasing length?

At what point do we admit that our coverage is skewing away from "political commentator, comedian and YouTuber" towards "defamation defendant"? We mention the Streisand effect in the Palmer section - the ANU calls it the "oxygen effect" - and I wonder just how much we're contributing to that by providing high-value pagerank mentions. Would it not be more appropriate to note that there is a legal dispute, provide the links, and instead of conducting our own "trial by Wikipedia", wait until there's an outcome and report that? --Pete (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the ambivalence around the court proceedings, I'll put this here for discussion. Should we mention that "Shanks has raised about $1m to fund his defamation battle against New South Wales deputy premier John Barilaro and the criminal defence of his producer, Kristo Langker". The donations came from "tens of thousands of Australians". We probably shouldn't mention Shanks' cheeky comment that "We have received more than 24,000 individual donations – that’s more people who first voted John Barilaro into parliament". Some of the donations will be used to defend David McBride who is being represented by the same law firm as Shanks.

It goes to the over-emphasis on legal matters as opposed to entertainment. One more stone on the pile. We keep on reporting every inconsequential development? Crowd-funding projects is hardly something encyclopaedic or consequential nowadays. Does this have any effect on his career? Probably not. If it does, we'll know about it later on. We're not a newspaper. --Pete (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I misread the Guardian article. It isn't the donations that will be used in David McBride's defence. The law firm representing Shanks, Xenophon Davis, will donate some of their fees from the Shanks case to David McBride. We don't mention in our article that Xenophon Davis is representing both Shanks and McBride. Burrobert (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

And now we see that this material has been included, further inflating the "legal defendant" over the "creative entertainer" overemphasis. Most of the article is about his legal troubles already but this is not mentioned at all in the lede which is supposedly a summary of the entire article. Rather than continually adding legal material, perhaps it is time we look at that the hell our article is about. Being a participant in civil proceedings is not notable, no matter how well-sourced it all is. We can quote the filings in court, matters of public record of unimpeachable authenticity and they still don't add up to an encyclopaedic article. --Pete (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

References

The most notable thing about friendlyjordies is the legal action. Im sure most people who have heard of the channel know about it because of the court case. Netanyahuserious (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Subscriber count

We should follow the guideline at WP:YTN regarding subscriber count, which is to use a secondary source. this one gives an indication of the money flowing in. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

---

A breathless "newspaper red-hot-news" item here. appearing on the Talk page rather than the actual page, noting a couple of YouTube milestones that have been reached over the last fortnight:

1. Reached 140K subscribers on Wednesday, 4 August 2021;

2. Currently (at 17 August 2021):

- Subscribers now 145K; and - Views ticked over 140 million in the last day or so.

I note that someone edited the stats a little on 14 August; not sure where the information I've given here fits in.

193.114.127.21 (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Same "breathless" contributor as above: Statistics for FJ on YouTube have increased sharply, especially as the video from a couple of days ago, Who set the Terror Police on friendlyjordies? already has over 270K views, and has some striking content relevant to the FJ/Barilaro stoush.

Overall, as at the time of writing (Sun 29 Aug):

1. Subscribers: 552K; and

2. Views: 142K.

As before, recording this stuff in Talk, and leaving it to others to judge what makes encyclopaedia-worthy content.

115.64.196.63 (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We go off reliable sources to judge what's noteworthy and what's not noteworthy. If secondary sources discuss the "Who set the Terror Police on friendlyjordies?" video then we can add something about it in the article, but broadly speaking he has a lot of videos so there's no reason yet to discuss this one in particular until (or if) secondary sources come around to it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on the issue on Thursday evening, 26 August (video was released earlier on that day):

John Barilaro reported Friendlyjordies to police six months before producer’s arrest

Not sure where Wikipedia's evaluation of SMH as a reliable source stands.

203.217.92.235 (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, The Sydney Morning Herald is very clearly a reliable source. I'll add in a sentence about it in the article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

---

(Same IP-idiot as above in this section... continuing...)

Thank you for adding the SMH reference. Also, thanks for adding the Barilaro v Shanks defamation lawsuit page.

This short comment is noting that the Langker/FPIU arrest has non-trivial overlap between this page and Barilaro's main page. The overlapping sections contain different details; perhaps some consolidation could be considered, perhaps a separate page for NSW Fixated Persons Investigation Unit.

Finally, I'll note that the portions of Hansard I quoted above regarding debate on the Federal "Online Safety Bill 2021" which appears in the "Comment" section above (Sen. Louise Pratt warning, on 18 June, of the danger of politicians abusing FPIU powers), now seems more pertinent in the light of the recent revelation of the just-over-six-month window (2 December 2020-4 June 2021) of Barilaro's contact with NSW FPIU.

60.240.215.131 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Gah... "IP Idiot" here again, sigh.

I don't have much social media presence (no FB, Twitter etc.), so I tend to find content to put on this Talk page via reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies.

Apparently two tweets from FJ are hot news today:

1. Video of police at a NSW Parliamentary (budget estimates) videoconference hearing (24 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGlUhmIpfKI

2. Sydney Morning Herald article, perhaps working from the above-mentioned videoconference recording:

Incorrect process followed when police unit arrested Friendlyjordies producer, hearing told

In my opinion, there's some imprecision between the Shanks/Langker/friendlyjordies entities' boundaries, as viewed from different perspectives. Same could be said about division of overall police entities into various sections.

It's possible that the latest releases may argue for or against having a separate FPIU page... again, I'm not an Encyclopaedia guru, so I don't know.

60.240.215.131 (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Image of dubious status

Looking at this image I wonder about copyright status. Yes, it links back to a Flickr page and has the appropriate license there but Flickr allows anybody to upload anything and make whatever claims they wish. The image is a still from a film Guarding the Galilee which appears to be copyright. This image is not fair use for purpose of review or comment, so what is the copyright status, precisely? --Pete (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that nobody has shown that it is in fact an image we can use - a difficult task, given its source - I have removed it. Perhaps we can find some image on Flickr that has a genuine CC license? --Pete (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Free screenshot from non-free video uploaded by official account. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Friendlyjordies.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Barilaro not convicted of assault of cameraman?

Shd we mention this??? Jack Upland (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The case does not appear to be in the article at the moment. If we mention it, we need to be careful about the phrasing. Reports indicate that the assault occurred but the magistrate dismissed the charge on mental health grounds. Some Guardian quotes:[7]

Barilaro’s lawyer Danny Eid applied to Sydney’s Downing Centre local court on Friday to have his charges dealt with on mental health grounds. A magistrate has dismissed an assault charge against former New South Wales deputy premier John Barilaro on mental health grounds. Clinical reports described Barilaro as having recurrent depression, anxiety and complex PTSD, and his behaviour may have been an “aberration” brought on by ongoing media attention. “Having viewed the footage … the objective seriousness is relatively minor,” Horan said. The physical contact was brief and the use of force also minor, Horan said, as was the damage to the camera.

Burrobert (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

True. Jack Upland (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Fire Bombing

This seems like a very important thing to have here. It happened two months ago and was a major thing in the news. I do not have much experience writing wikipedia articles yet, so I am mentioning it here so someone can flesh out a section on it. ArchangelGabriel0723 (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We do mention it briefly under "Personal life" using two sources. What's the latest? Any sources? Burrobert (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Latest news I heard was FJ uploading a video about it, which I assume sparked new interest. Deathcap00 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't had time to watch the video yet. There is a Reddit thread about the video in the PoliticsDownUnder sub, in which commentators say the video doesn't reveal the culprits. Have not been able to find any coverage of the video in the corporate media. Burrobert (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

In the subscribers part, Jordan has 1.07 Million not 1.05 Million Source: https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyjordies POLISHReistance (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC) In the subscribers part, Jordan has 1.07 Million not 1.05 Million Source: https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyjordies

 Done 💜  melecie  talk - 12:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Correction

"Shanks subsequently filmed a video inside an Airbnb rental property owned by Barilaro" Shanks rented the property through Stayz. The cited article mentions the property's Airbnb price & the video's critics have assumed it was rented through Airbnb, but the cleaning bill shown in the video is from the Stayz app. 65.50.165.31 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Airbnb.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Change title to "Jordan Shanks"

Jordan has a name, guys. Also, his self-help channel is smaller (~100K subs) but this is an important part of his public image. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F036:F96B:4C0:5859 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)