Talk:Eric Roozendaal

message: I have reduced the size of the section on the ICAC investigation, while trying to keep generally NPOV language, for a number of reasons:
:1. The section was based on one source. While that isn't a huge problem, the section basically just repeated a significant portion of the text from that article. I have tried the summarise the issue, keeping important points while not simply re-publishing the source. There will, of course, be other sources in Australian media but these will likely just be giving coverage to the same hearing / transcript / issue and citing multiple sources that all say exactly the same thing is fairly pointless. 
:2. The source in question was written by a journalist whose own links to the investigation have been called into question. I'm not going to summarise the transcripts and provide an in-article analysis (that would be blatant OR) but there are concerns about editorial independence. I don't think it, yet, makes the source "unreliable" but we should be cautious about extensively quoting from one particular source (which would be a WP:WEIGHT issue under any circumstances).
:3. The ICAC is not a court - it's an investigative body with no power to prosecute. While that doesn't particularly impact on the sources, we should be aware of the criteria at WP:CRIME and be conscious that this article is a BLP. The "crime" in question is only an allegation of misconduct. Even then, if the ICAC finds there is something to answer for, that still won't amount to a conviction. So these aren't even allegations for which he could be convicted at this point. It would have to be referred to a court. That's not to say it shouldn't be covered (the investigation / hearings have received plenty of coverage and so should be mentioned), we just need to be careful how we frame the allegations. 
On the basis of the above I have reduced the section in question with absolutely no prejudice against it being expanded further when more information becomes available (like, for example, when the ICAC publishes its report). Cheers, Stalwart111 00:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No hassles from my perspective. My edits were based around trying to clean up a very messy earlier edit and layout that placed undue emphasis on the allegations and the one source. Thanks for focusing on the facts. It will be interesting to see if, and what, ICAC publishes and recommends.  Rangasyd (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree entirely, and yours were good edits. Have actually raised some concerns here and, coincidentally, linked to some of your comments elsewhere. Advice I got was to collate some proper substantive stuff for editors to consider, so I plan to do that over the next few days. Stalwart111 11:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Howdy again, Stalwart. Would you please review my recent edit to ensure that I've been fair in WP:BLP? Whilst Rooz was cleared by ICAC, there needs to be some construct around his suspension from Labor (is he still suspended?) and his subsequent resignation from the LC. I have not included any of the latest ICAC airings as not yet substantiated by a finding, etc. Also, I did some bold editing re mention of Julia Irwin, as it was insignificant in the context; and wove other content into body re political career. Please let me know your thoughts or edit, as you see fit. Thanks Rangasyd (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

text: *I think it looks good. I'm a bit dubious about the current state (which essentially reads as if ICAC cleared him in total) when after Jodi McKay's evidence he's still in pretty deep, but I'm content to wait until ICAC delivers their findings on the latest investigation before covering that in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

text: *I'm comfortable with it. The ICAC investigated that matter and cleared him with regard to that matter. Whether they do so with regard to other things is unrelated. Stalwart111 07:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: 2012 ICAC investigation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Eric Roozendaal. 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/20121101032624/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au:80/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3AllMembers/3078 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3AllMembers/3078
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101032624/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au:80/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3AllMembers/3078 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3AllMembers/3078
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) 14:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Roozendaal. 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.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3AllMembers/3078
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121101032624/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3AllMembers/3078 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3AllMembers/3078
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) 16:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified