Talk:John Pascoe

Edit discussion thread

No discussion from previous edit posts (even the one who said should be discusison - although at least they identified themself). Edit to page to remove potentially defamatory one-liner (link ref made imputation clear). Ref/quote did not support claim. Did not show a Neutral Point of View. Material added by user without apparent identity. Considerable work is being done to develop legal pages as serious contribution to wikipedia. Such additions are only likely to add to distrust of Wikipedia and reduce contributions in this area. There is already Considerable US opinion against Wiki's in the legal areaFedLawyer 12:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

From looking at what you have deleted, I don't agree with your decision. I do not think it is defamatory, since it does not claim any wrongdoing on his part -- all it claims is that his friendship with John Howard may have unduly influenced Howard's influence to give him the job. Even if what is alleged is true, there is no implication of illegal activity on the part of either Howard or Pascoe--so even if the allegations are true (and the article did not claim they were), I do not see how they could be defamatory. Also, since the very nature of what is claimed -- that Howard was unduly influenced by a personal relationship in an appointment decision -- is the sort of vague claim that cannot be definitively proven as true or false, but must remain in the realm of opinion -- thus, by being incapable of being more than a mere opinion, it is not likely to be liable to an action for defamation. Furthermore, consider the fact that Wikipedia is not claiming anything -- merely reporting what a journalist claims in a (or to be more accurate, the) major Sydney newspaper. If anyone is going to be sued for defamation, its Fairfax, and can you imagine the Chief Federal Magistrate suing Fairfax for defamation? Remember that when Pascoe was involved in George Westons & Aristocrat, the SMH business pages wrote less than positive articles about him on several occasions, and nothing untoward ever happened to him. So, I really would not be worried about being sued. Finally, I think the point of the quotation is that his appointment was somewhat controversial (I say somewhat, because the average person frankly could not care, only those people who follow these sorts of things.) It was a somewhat unusual decision to appoint someone who had no experience on the bench, and who was more noted as a corporate leader than a lawyer, to such a senior judicial position. Thus, I don't think the quotation is irrelevant. Thus, I am re-adding it, maybe with some softenning. --SarahEmma 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

From looking at what you have added, I don't agree with your decision.

1. I do think it is defamatory, since it does make claims that imply he is not capable of performing the job and obtained the position by inappropriate means. It need not allege any wrongdoing on his part to defame (eg the footballer who succeeded in defamation for a photo of him in the showers) but a false acusation can be defamatory.

2. You way, 'so even if the allegations are true (and the article did not claim they were) ...'. If there is no confidence in the allegations it is simply a slur on a person without foundation - this is not the quality of article for Wikipedia's legal content. You say it 'is the sort of vague claim that cannot be definitively proven as true or false' - again I ask why should a person be slured with such vague claims. The fact that Wikipedia is publishing a defamatory comment from annother is still defamatory.

3. I am saddened that your sense of morality is defined by your assessment of your risk of being sued. I expect that Wikipedians use a moral yardstick of a different measure.

4. You allege that his appointment was somewhat controversial (although inconsistently allege that the average person frankly could not care), yet provide no references.

5. I find your comment that 'It was a somewhat unusual decision to appoint someone who had no experience on the bench' naive in the extreme - it is in fact rare to appoint someone with experience on the bench - judges come from the profession in Australia, unlike the civil law countries of Europe.

6. Where is your evidence of the allegation that he 'was more noted as a corporate leader than a lawyer'?

7. I don't understand your description of the lowest federal court as 'such a senior judicial position' when it falls under the High Court, Federal Court and Family Court, and by implication every state Supreme Court.

8. I also note that you suggest that the PM appointed Pascoe - this is simply wrong. All appointments to judicial office are made by the Attorney General.

If you want to look at delving into his background and appointment, some propper research would add to the scholarly nature of the article. Simply re-adding comments that are mud slinging, presumably driven by your political antipathy for the current government reflects poorly upon you and Wikipedia. Thus, I deleting it. If you genuinely think that a review of the comments about Pascoe and the FMC in the media would add to the article, then do the real work of collating and summarising them all - including the positive ones for a NPV - and add a section to the article. FedLawyer 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Pascoe. 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/20160207211916/https://law.anu.edu.au/news/law/anu-law-alumni-recognised-australia-day-awards to https://law.anu.edu.au/news/law/anu-law-alumni-recognised-australia-day-awards

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)