Talk:Danny Nalliah

message: As Danny is his nickname that he doesn't use official it should redirect to Daniel Nalliah and not the other-way.
Refer to Rise Up Australia Party Website.
Werezwolf (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Offical Name Change

message: Nalliah is particularly known for his conservative and often incendiary comments about Muslims and Jews.
The body of the text doesn't say anything about him saying stuff about Jews. Andjam 04:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone. Ambi 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement on incendary comments on Jews not in text of article

message: In the wikipedia weasel word worked example, they described 
:"Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." 
as an example of weasel words, and suggested replacing with a verifiable fact 
:"The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships -- almost three times as many as any other team." 
even though the former is a fairly "obvious fact". Isn't saying that Danny has made provocative comments analogous to saying that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team, whereas noting the successful lawsuit is analogous to mentioning the Yankees championship record? Andjam 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting analogy, that I'm not quite convinced by. At any rate, I think the way it is done in the 2nd para of New York Yankees is quite good. As for this article, it seems to me undeniable that Nalliah is widely known because of his inflammatory comments concerning religions other than Christianity, particularly Islam. It is also true that his comments were first brought to public attention by the lawsuit, but not all the comments which attracted controversy were covered by the lawsuit. Arguing about whether to only mention the lawsuit or whether to make a more general statement seems quite petty, but I feel that the lawsuit statement by itself is very abrupt and also hides the fact that the controversy surrounding him is wider than what the lawsuit dealt with. JPD (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid weasel words worked example 

message: Nevertheless, his candidacy caused considerable controversy when conservative National Party Senate candidate Barnaby Joyce launched a heavily publicised attack on Family First (which his party had exchanged preferences with) the day before the election.
Does the word conservative add to the above sentence? Even if such a label is helpful, is it a bit ambiguous as to what it refers to? Andjam 12:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Party is conservative. Why again label Joyce? michael talk 10:58, 17 June 2006
**The sentence in question has nothing to do with the National Party. It has to do with Joyce, who is a social conservative. His comments got such attention at the time precisely because they were coming from a socially-conservative Christian. Waging a war on the use of the word "conservative" is senseless, particularly when it adds useful context and can't really be read pejoratively in any way. Rebecca 10:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of word conservative 

message: The section on brochures could do with some references. 
*Were the brochures written by Danny, or distributed by him?
"pull down Satan's strongholds", which were classed as, among other things, mosques and temples, with Buddhists and Hindus specifically singled out
*The sentence sounds like it says Buddhists worship at mosques, and Hindus worship at temples. Did the brochures read like this? Andjam 03:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From memory, I'm not sure either Joyce or the media clarified that one. Rebecca 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the issue here that if mosques were mentioned that Muslims were implicitly singled out as well? (Even if it does seem a bit odd, the statement as is isn't self=contradictory.) As for sources, could someone find details on the articles that the broken links at Family First Party used to link to. JPD (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striking down the prophets of false 

message: Some versions of the article has him saying that he is particularly known for provocative comments about Muslims. A citation isn't given. Following WP:BLP, I'm removing the comment pending a reliable citation. Andjam 07:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try. The sources are already in the body of the article; the lead, as it is supposed to do, summarises said article. I'm not particularly happy about the lead as it stands either, but it needs to be rewritten in a manner acceptable to both of us, not lamely censored. Rebecca 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims about incendiary comments about Muslims 

message: I removed a section of the article as it contained allegations about a living person that cited only the Adelaide institute and leftwrites.net , neither of which I regard as a reliable source. I googled for other hits, and didn't come across anything apart from two opinion pieces (neither of whom I regard as very reliable). Andjam 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of section 

message: I have removed the following unsourced paragraph added by 220.237.25.181 :
According to Danny Nalliah: “Divorce must be kept in line with scripture and remarriage should only be on the grounds of sexual infidelity, as upheld by Christian leaders for the past 20 centuries” which, effectively tells women in his congregation, and elsehwere, to “shut up and take it” when their husbands bash them up, as divorce is not accepted by him or his Church, merely for reasons of domestic violence. Like many on the religious and political right, a great deal of fuss is made regarding sex, but mere violence, expecially to women, is not of such concern.
It should not be reinstated without a citation. Blarneytherinosaur talk 07:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's biased and misrepresented too, so even with a citation, the only thing could be added is his opposition to divorce except on the grounds of marital infidelity. To allege that he meant for women "to shut up and take it" is just an insult. michael talk 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the point of the quote remains: that he believes victims of domestic violence should remain with their partners. However, until someone actually makes something of such disgusting comments, I don't really think it belongs in this article. Rebecca 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of unsourced information

message: Since they were found guilty of religious vilification, why does this article still say alleged? Merely appealing the decision does not change the fact that the law found them guilty. Nino137.111.47.29 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  alleged vilification of muslims 

message: Gordon Moyes at http://www.gordonmoyes.com/2009/02/20/cdps-shonky-prophet-condemned/ indicates he is no longer certified as a minister by the ACC
Can this be trested as reliable? Paul foord (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Link with Australian Christian Churches

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Danny Nalliah. 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/20120321061333/http://www.cdp.org.au/component/jnews/mailing/view/listid-3/mailingid-997/listype-1.html to http://www.cdp.org.au/component/jnews/mailing/view/listid-3/mailingid-997/listype-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Danny Nalliah. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21963547-1702,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002150057/http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/?p=5290 to http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/?p=5290
*Added  tag to http://www.prodos.solidvox.com/?p=11%2F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061018210849/http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/101.html to http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/case/101.html
*Added  tag to http://www.liberalsforfreespeech.org/CatchTheFireMinistriesSubmissionToEOC.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified