Talk:Piers Akerman/Archive 1

message: Any word on Akerman being arrested for assaulting protestors in Sydney around March 16th 2006? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.230.126.23 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 March 2006  (UTC)
:Nope. Wasnt it funny how he says he's sick of protestors who disrespect free speech.....[redacted as per blp]
He was the one jostled and pushed to the ground when protesters tried to block people going in to hear Condi Rice's speech. Have a look here. 
"[redacted as per blp]" - was that your signature? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elitism (talk • contribs) 05:05, 21 May 2006  (UTC)
:: He was the one who claimed to be jostled, at least. In hindsight the claim appears to have been 'journalistic licence' by Mr Akerman to emphasise his view of the protestors. Despite his statements in the article (linked above), no charges were laid and there was no video evidence to back the claim. There is certainly no evidence that Mr Akerman jostled anyone either. Jeendan 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Freedom of Speech

message: Thought it should be noted that Akerman has blogged regarding Wikipedia/Scanner in general, and also about this article in particular, stating that it is inaccurate and based on an inaccurate article.  I've no special knowledge of which parts may or may not be accurate, so I can't edit the main page.
His post can be found here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22318905-5007146,00.html
Brendan Cosman 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tickle there were a lot of BAD BLP violations on this talk page, that had been here for months. Thats might be what he was complaining about. (Hypnosadist) 08:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Akerman's comment on Wikipedia and Wikiscanner

message: * I'm busy with the page, don't fret if it looks a little messy at the mo'   Skopp   02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's all been added back in. Vandalism reported too.   Skopp   07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Overhaul in progress 

message: The article notes Akerman's views on climate change as follows: "Although he has no formal education in climate science, he justifies his strong views by quoting the work of.."
I have removed the reference to no formal education because it implies that having formal education is a requirement for informed comment on the topic. As such it is a point of view rather than a verifiable fact. Most opinion columnists have no formal training in the issues they discuss, and that of itself is not enough to discredit their views. Al Gore had no formal climate change education before he became an activist on the issue. If a reliable secondary source makes reference to Akerman's lack of formal education on this issue, we might be justified in including it. Without that, we're just expressing a view. 
Obviously there are other opinions on this issue, as the sentence fragmeent has been removed and restored a couiple of times. If the removal remains controversial, I'd like to invite anyone with an opinion to express it here so a consensus can be reached either way. Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reasoning is sound. As a point of record though, I must admit that when I was still researching articles to edit (inappropriately so, as I now know), I found this in the Al Gore articleIn 1967 Gore took a course on climate science from Roger Revelle which made a strong impression on him, influencing him in the direction of environmental concerns.[21]Because of that, I chose to amend the CB article instead, leaving Al Gore who had evidenced such an education. I think the key would be consistency across all articles, and at the moment I agree with Euryalus that the topic should only be brought up, should relevant evidence exist. That said, it still is a POV that a journalist cannot provide an opinion on an issue if they don't maintain formal education in that field. The entire Wikipedia article base would need review if every opinion and whim of journalists needed references on their education. Obviously this might be complicated by the fact that most journalist only have education in, well... journalism (Al Gore would be the exception that proves the rule). Martin0001 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected on Al Gore's education. Arguably the course you reference makes him more a barefoot doctor than a neurosurgeon, so perhaps the point remains. Anyway, there would be times where noting someone's lack of formal qualifications is relevant, but it would need a source here, and sufficient context to explain its inclusion. Euryalus (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate science training