Talk:Andrew Landeryou

message: *Why is Landeryou called a "journalist" if his chief income coems from business?
*How do we know that Landeryou was removed from office through a campaign against him organised by the left-wing Education Action Group itself condemned by the University Vice-Chancellor David Penington at the time as violent and politically motivated.?
*He is now being sued by Dean McVeigh the controversial liquidator of MUSU with eleven others in a lawsuit that makes sweeping claims yet has limited detail. Whose determination is that?
*Why were these three links removed?
**Landeryou takes aim at enemies with blog (ABC Radio, 4 May)
**Landeryou threatened me, says liquidator (David Elias and Leonie Wood)	
**Landeryou appears in court (Alison Caldwell)
There appears to be an effort to inject a strong POV into this article, without proper sources. -Willmcw 10:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Proper sources on such a contemporary matter are hard to define. The only publicly available sources are newspaper articles, but Landeryou has contested both the accuracy and fairness of these, contending that the Age is waging a vendetta against him because of the Socialist Left loyalties of certain Age journalists. This is obviously a self-serving claim, but it may also be true. Almost everyone who knows the facts of these matters is either a particpant or else violently partisan, and I don't have any better sources. Editors should proceed with care. Adam 11:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced edits 

message: I have made a series of changes to this article and am keen to talk them through with those interested. But I'll tell you now, I'm not happy about people making sweeping deletions of my work without even the courtesy of discussing it. This article as it stood was quite shockingly biased and should not be allowed to continue. I am not saying my contribution is perfect but I think a discussion should occur so we can bring forward the facts. DarrenRay 03:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the more frivolous edits from my revised version. The earlier version with its false implications of criminality and so on are clearly grossly defamatory. Without evidence they should not be published here. Happy to discuss any specific concerns with the revised version if anyone has issues with it. DarrenRay 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regurgitation of unsourced allegations made by Landeryou on his blog are hearsay. A link is already provided to his blog. Attempting to completely remove references to his involvement in the liquidation of MUSU is grossly POV.Theusualsuspect 07:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates and Changes

message: Due to recent edit warring, I've protected the article. Please discuss changes to the article contents here rather than revert each others contributions to the article itself endlessly. -- Longhair 07:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the 'disputed' notice. -- Longhair 07:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What facts are you disputing, and what are your sources. Links or quotes to Landeryou's blog are POV, but the blog's notoriety is noted in the article.Theusualsuspect 07:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to place my position in the open, I'm not concerned on the article content, so long as whatever is in dispute has a valid reputable source I don't see a problem with any contributions. My role as an administrator was to stop the edit war from continuing, forcing editors to discuss article content here. My only edits to the article itself have been to place Mr Landeryou into relevant Wikipedia categories. If nobody wishes to discuss article changes after a suitable period, say a week or so, I'll remove the existing page protection. -- Longhair 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion is fine, but it's hard to have a one way one. DarrenRay 07:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  For a start, he is not a businessman. Do a Google search and you will see he is a full-time journalist and publisher. Practically every sentence of the earlier version is like this, either wrong, outdated or just part of an attack article. I believe comparing the revised version with the one you protected identifies the issues. I am pleased to discuss each and every change. DarrenRay 07:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Including information into Landeryou's involvement in IQ would be notable. He is not best known for his weblog, although his controversial claims made on the blog have attracted attention. Phrases like "There was more than a little puzzlement about the fact" are POV and are not encyclopedic. Including accusations made by Landeryou against reporters and former ALP officials is potentially libelous or hearsay, or at best should included in a different article (ie, Locke could go under the Victorian ALP). Links to blogs (such as the one to WSA caucus) are opinion and are as POV as links to Landeryou's blog. Including sentences like "Landeryou says that he plans to counter-claim against Lew" are likewise unverifiable.Theusualsuspect 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  In response to the usualsuspect, there is presumably no problem sourcing Landeryou's opinion to his published statements. He is clearly now best known for his blog, on any objective measure. A discussion of weblog opinion is not out of the question either, particularly when that opinion is the subject of national media attention. Even those not liking the guy cannot really refute the press articles. Those who delete them saying all references to his high profile blog are engaging in POV of the least subtle kind. And looking at Adam's comments below, I agree with his remarks. The older version of this article is no more than an attack. The revised version is not perfect but I think is a good start in removing the attacks, updating the article for recent events and ensuring some balance of the kind that Adam refers to below. DarrenRay 08:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring and page protection

message: Wholesale rework of an article to a different POV will generate edit wars as evidenced in this article almost immediately after the protection tag was removed. It is far better to make changes incrementally over a period of time to allow other editors to review and discuss and controversy in relation to those edits rather one hundred changes in one edit. Wikipedia is about editing by consensus - not who reckons they're right. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also opposed to merging the article. Landeryou is notable outside the MUSU saga - something not shared by the other protagonists. Ambi 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incremental changes 

message: It is inappropriate for editors who are the subject of this article to create redlinks for their names when they are far from notable and never likely to be so. I won't get into another revert war since their egos appear to be taken a battering but I will add a comment here on how absurd these useless edits are. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the history, Darren was actually the one who removed those redlinks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Aha! I did indeed overlook the last few edits as the wholesale reverts by Darren and Ben had previously restored these redlinks. Apologies to all for jumping to conclusions (although this instance is the exception rather than the norm). Garglebutt / (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since four of us--Darren, Ben, Garglebutt and myself--agree to removing the redlinks, I've removed them. Hopefully no one else will take issue with it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please put the links back Sarah, these guys are well known (in)famous public figures who were widely alleged to have mismanaged a fairly large public institution and we should therefore have articles on them. -- pde 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Adam has an excellent point.  Whether or not you guys happen to prefer Nintendo or other forms of recreation has no bearing on it. -- pde
Removal of material should really be explained here. Blog references supporting facts are problematic I agree but not supporting opinion. I have restored them accordingly. DarrenRay 09:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanity links 

message: Is this the same person as  ? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same as? 

message: Two IP users have tried to edit this bio favourably to Landeryou. IP 202.134.229.231 made the following changes:
*Changed blogger to journalist, but I can't find a reliable source that describes Landeryou as a journalist.
*Removed mention of IQ Corp going into liquidation.
*Removed mention of being arrested.
*Removed bankruptcy and separation from his wife.
*Changed mention of Vexnews from "publishes the blog" to "is editor of".
*Changed account of event with Les Twentyman to details not in the sources.
IP 120.156.3.254 then went further:
*Removed all mention of the MUSU financial case and his involvement in it.
*Changed heading "Blogging" to "Journalism".
*Changed link to Landeryou's blog to a link to Vexnews.
I've reverted these changes, as to me they're plainly not neutral. If editors want changes made along these lines, they're going to have to discuss them here. Fences&Windows 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sanitising by IPs

message: Why has Rebecca deleted well-sourced material? Carola56 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you sanitising this bio? COI, perhaps? Fences&Windows 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

text: "Other front-page stories prompted by Landeryou's investigative reporting include a Fairfax story about Australian politicians sanitising their Wikipedia articles". Ha. The irony. Fences&Windows 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebecca's deletions 

message: It was there some time back, and I've re-included it. It's clearly critical to understanding the man. It also is linked to his ongoing writing about Lew. It's also linked to how he got away with writing the sorts of things he did on his original blog. Clearly it should be included.
The weird sanitising of his Costa Rica escape that completely ignores that he avoided a summons was also fixed in the revert.
I wonder how long it'll be till AL or one of his mates tries to re-sanitise it again. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, it's supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. ~~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garth M (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was the material on Landeryou's bankruptcy removed?

message: There's an allegation I have some agenda. My only agenda is for this article to be neutral POV and include all relevant material. Landeryou's bankruptcy, for example, should clearly be included. It's a fairly major aspect of any person, particularly one who writes the kind of provocative things he does.
The material I restored, btw, was from an earlier version of this page and not entered by me. It's material that is properly referenced and was clearly only removed because the subject of the page would rather present himself more favourably. 
The material in the current version should not be removed without an explanation of why it's not encyclopaedic and should not be included.
Also I've remembered how to properly sign comments! Garth M (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting edits

message: ::We have no idea what the correct birthdate is beyond the incessantly repeated contributions of one user who admits a connection with the subject and has engaged in original research, uploading what purported to be original documents. Those activities alone ought be enough to have him banned, but as it relates to the birthdate, it doesn't really help us much. 2005-35=1970, I presume that's why it's been recorded that way previously and until we find something else. I'd accept The Age as a source over the assertions of an anonymous Wikipedia user with an admitted grudge. Let's move on from there please. Those uploading purportedly original documents with probably false dates and other strange information ought consider the ethics of what they're doing and also the legality of it. I don't know that has happened here but it wouldn't surprise me from what I've seen play out on this article. It's been quite an eye-opener.
::As I have written on the Andrew Bolt Talk page, calling someone a journalist is not a term of endearment, it's a description of their activity. There can be good journalists and bad ones. We're not here to make judgments. Landeryou is a journalist by any definition and should also be called a publisher in the same way as I note Julian Assange has been. Assange doesn't write a lot of news stories as we classically understand them, that's not his kind of journalism, he obtains and releases documents. Some might quibble with that and question whether it's journalism in the same way as newspapers do it - or indeed how Landeryou does it - but it fits in all three cases. There is plenty that Bolt, Assange and Landeryou publish that is displeasing but that doesn't mean they're not journalists. Indeed, I would say, the converse is true.
::They publish opinion, in addition to or instead of facts. That, again, doesn't mean they're not journalists, any more than it means the leader writers of the New York Times aren't journalists or that The Age's Paul Austin stopped being a journalist when he changed from reporting on Victorian politics to writing the Age's leading articles and being opinion editor.
::Finally, the quotes are quite reasonable and I think shed light on the subject, if there are others, they should be used but persistently removing useful material as part of a campaign of denigration and vilification is not what Wikipedia is about. The article will come out of protection and we won't make any progress if one user's admitted agenda gets in the way. --Brandonfarris (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To my reasoning, Andrew Bolt and Andrew Landeryou are pseudo-journalists, they rarely do any actual reporting of news, rather they craft, assemble and fabricate stories using a mixture of fact and fiction, hardly journalism. Assange is more of a publisher, but journalist could also apply. Nick carson (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Landeryou is a journalist by "any definition" and in nay case, no reliable source that describes Landeryou as journalist exists that I can find. He isn't a member of the Australian Journalists Association, doesn't comply with ethical standards of the Australian Press Council nor is vexnews a constituent organisation (Bolt and Herald Sun are so complaints can be made). Political blogger is accurate in my opinion. Claims must be referencedmFlatOut 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Bolt, Assange and Landeryou journalists?

message: Many substantial changes were made to the article restoring content added by a banned user without any attempt to discuss or build consensus. What can be done about this to avoid conflict. Certainly the article has not been improved at all. We have already a discussion about journalist is appropriate. I think withholding the term from disapproved journalists is bad practice, and we have the ABC as a source, can we resolve that for a start? --Caterann (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of talk to build consensus 

message: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/claims-galore-of-unhealthy-activities-at-health-unions-election-20121206-2ayby.html The Age 7 December 2012 Claims galore of unhealthy activities at health union's election by Clay Lucas 
:Mr Bolano said that on Tuesday night a member of his campaign team was hit by a car driven at slow speed by blogger Andrew Landeryou.
:Mr Landeryou, who is close to Mr Shorten and supporting Ms Asmar's campaign, vehemently denies the claim.
:A campaigner for Mr Bolano, Dustin Behrens, said he was at the Health Services Union's South Melbourne office on Tuesday night when he was hit by a car driven by a man he believed to be Mr Landeryou. I rolled off the car. The impact hurt but I don't have any lasting injuries, he said.
:Mr Landeryou said he had not been in South Melbourne on Tuesday night and any claims he was were scurrilous.
--101.160.156.188 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  HSU 

message: Someone should mention that VEXNEWS has effectively closed down. The website is still up, but has not been updated for over a year, and the top story is Andrew Landeryou claiming (tongue-in-cheek) to be sacked. I don't know what Andrew Landeryou is doing these days, but not VEXNEWS any more it appears. Someone should update article accordingly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.1.138 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  VEXNEWS closed down 

message: Landeryou's notoriety was the main reason this entry wasn't deleted last time. It was based on his blogs, which are now offline or dormant.
Garth M (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is extensive coverage of Landeryou in reliable, third party sources. Flat Out (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: where? Garth M (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renominated for deletion - blogs now offline/dormant 

message: Updated to reflect that the blogs are long-since gone.
Are the paragraphs about VexNews proudly boasting of "stories" it "broke" really appropriate for an encyclopedia? It reads very much like someone trying to make the websites seem important with HEY LOOK ANDREW BOLT SAID SOMETHING NICE ABOUT ME.
What exactly is Landeryou's notability? Is it that he ran some blogs? Or the Melbourne Uni stuff? Garth M (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The blogs are defunct - updated to reflect this 

message: Please add to Background paragraph:
1.  Is married to Labor Senator Kimberley Kitchinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Kitching. 
2.  In December 2016 was charged criminal vandalism in relation to the 2016 federal election campaign.http://www.afr.com/news/politics/bill-shorten-ally-facing-criminal-charges-over-vandalism-during-election-20161229-gtj5r4#ixzz4Yjr964h1 Quenta oz (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y  S A Y L E S  16:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017 

message: At the moment, the blogging section seems like a list of "every compliment I've ever gotten about my blog" and "look at the stories I was connected to". Imagine such a section for a news website that actually reported news. If the blogging is notable - and I have serious doubts that it is - surely it should be reduced down to a description that he ran those blogs, not every compliment he was ever paid. Garth M (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail of blogging section is un-encyclopaedic 

message: Editor ShaneTherapist possibly conflict of interest with article subject.
Section on David Langsam and restraining order has been heavily amended not according to information from cited article. Information regarding Andrew Landeryou's vandalism charges has also been amended. 121.208.45.99 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rolled the article back to the last version before these changes were made since they mainly appeared to be for the purpose of removing negative, sourced material, and gave no explanation for the removal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019