Talk:Michael Atkinson (politician)

message: I have altered the following sentence:
"He is a strong supporter of internet-censorship,[1] and is responsible for maintaining Australia's status as the only Western country without an "Adults Only" rating for video games, with the consequence that games with content unsuitable for children are also banned for use by adults,[2] despite overwhelming demand for such a rating."
Specifically, I changed "Australia's status as the only Western country without an "Adults Only" rating for video games" to "Australia's status as one of the few Western countries wihtout an "Adults Only" rating for video games". The reference that was provided (a newspaper article), does not state anywhere that Australia is the only Western country without an adult rating for video games. Also, the term 'Western country' is not even used, and is a questionable term: how is a Western country specifically defined? Of course, Australia would nonetheless fall under this category, but still. Anyway, so I altered the sentence slightly to at least maintain some degree of accuracy, but it is still not perfect. If someone can find a reference stating that Australia is the only Western country without an adults only rating for video games, then certainly go ahead and change it back. Cheers! 121.213.253.68 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an FYI, Australia is better termed a Developed country then a Western country since it is not in the West.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not geographically, but Australia is a western country by some modern definitions of that term. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes but my point still stands. Australia is better described as a Developed country South of Asia then as a "Western Country" when talking about economics or geography. Western in the context its used here may not be appropriate. Its a term that is seeing less and less use in reference to Australia, just like the term 'first world'.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: As to the part I have altered

message: * since the article appears to be read-only, I post it here: the first link (supposedly leading to his officl bio) is dead - the correct one is http://www.sa.alp.org.au/people/sa/atkinson_michael.php - please fix, if anyone can. 203.153.204.184 (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done.  Mitch Ames (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography link is broken 

message: Just to get a discussion going, Michael Atkinson has been recently villified again here. Sadly, certain users believe anyone who criticizes Atkinson's stance against gaming accept from the most meek, sterile terms goes against WP:BIO, so I've decided to start a discussion on the matter. While I admit, "Yahtzee" may not be the most politically correct person, but written properly, ZP can and should be used as a source. ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. See ongoing discussion. What ZP thinks of Atkinson with some award is not noteable to Atkinson's WP:BLP, and this contributor is the only one to support it's addition to the article. An admin has agreed that it should not be in the article as evidenced in the history log. I don't know why this contributor is supporting it in the first place when it clearly does not have a place in the article, and has no WP:CONSENSUS. Until such time as the contributor has consensus, he has no leg to stand on in re-instating the edit. Timeshift (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he chose to publically whine and run to a tame admin, not to mention his choice of title of that particular subsection in his aformentioned discussion shows that this decidedly needs to be discussed in the effort to gain consensus. If you have an issue with it and choose to get an admin to support you, that's fine. However, I still exercise my right to discuss the fact that ZP is valid and, who knows, enough people will give me consensus.ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So we agree on the principle of WP:CONSENSUS now... thankyou! Timeshift (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That cheap remark you just made was cheap and in bad faith. On to more important matters... ZP is decidedly relevant because it adds the fact that people oppose his policies, including that on gaming. The few additions that are there are decidedly to mild and seem like ass-kissing more than anything else ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Even I don't think it belongs, and I'm a member of ZP. HalfShadow 04:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding in [[Zero Punctuation]] episode 

message: This article is coat-racked to death. Almost half of it (and almost all of the reference section) is about the very marginal issue of game ratings, adding more isn't a good idea, taking out all that other superfluous stuff is an even better idea. Sambauers (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I found discrepancies between what was said in the article, and what was in the provided citations. I have fixed some of it - which involved cutting a fair bit of that section. regards --Merbabu (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Game ratings

message: Atkinson is somebody who for the censorship and banning of video games, by blocking something as simple as a MA18+ rating for no understandable reason. --Greatrobo76 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe this means he should be added to an unrelated catagory but I will wait for any objections by other users before I proceed to remove it. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He is instrumental in depriving millions of adult Australians access to content available in all other OECD jurisdictions in the world, and he does so single handedly due to distinctly undemocratic elements of Australia's political system. I believe he should be, and strongly so. DavidHuo (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. That's not what categories are for. They should be for clear cut, non-debateable characteristics - age, political party, affiliations, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, so I can't add politicians to :Category:People I don't like? Damn. (And the "instrumental" and "single-handedly" in an earlier is a bit excessive... he's a minister in caucus in the majority party of the Assembly. Not defending the bloke, but this is meant to be a biography.) Orderinchaos 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding him to Category:Video game censorship

message: Can't we get this page semi'ed? The vandalism over the last few weeks is significant. --Merbabu (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection? 

message: Hi. I added a new paragraph about a recent internet-censorship controversy that's been going on. I included a quote from an advertiser editorial, realising that it isn't neutral, but thought that it captured the tone and severity of the article. Not sure if this is proper form -I'm not a regular contributor- but just letting you know in case anyone has a problem with it. 
I think the paragraph as a whole is necessary in so much as it sheds some more information on Atkinson's political life. The article as a whole is fairly short, and although it would be easy to fill it with a lot of gamer-related debate and R18+ material it's important to also examine some of the other facets of his political life, i.e. involvement in St. Clair redevelopment or being was sued for public defamation. It might come off as biased, but the point is that it actually happened and it deserves to feature in the article.
PieMachine (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, WP:BLP articles are not about WP:COATRACKs. And we require WP:NPOV contributions. Your contribution as it stood is not suitable and has therefore been removed. Timeshift (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Advertiser editorial 

message: Can someone add a section about Michael Atkinson's recent law that effects internet comments?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.187.169 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But he will be repealing them before the election campaign starts, which is when the law would have taken effect? Don't get me wrong, look at my userpage, I'm extremely unhappy with what was proposed, but unlike some other politicians, it didn't take long for him to listen and act upon the backlash. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the whole incident is notable enough to warrant inclusion though, even if he does backtrack? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It deserves a mention but it doesn't deserve to dominate the article as it previously did, and some on this talk page and in edit history are suggesting. It also needs to stick to the point and not misrepresent the references as it did before I cleaned it up a week or so ago. --Merbabu (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Atkinson's recent internet censorship law 

message: The Internet Commenting Controversy:
* Adelaide Now / The Advertiser breaking the story: 
* ABC News with the initial story: 
* ABC News with the backdown: 
 -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It really isn't. The only reason the majority of sources are News Ltd is that all of the major newspapers in SA are owned by Murdoch (believe me, I'm not proud of it) and Atkinson doesn't get as much coverage outside the state. If you can offer anything from Fairfax or otherwise you're welcome. We'll work with what we've got, but so far all I can find (or what I can find with the most information) is from the Murdoch papers. PieMachine (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And what exactly is the point of listing a bunch of anti-Atkinson articles on his wikipedia talkpage? I already feel that this in itself is highly borderline against wikipedia policies. References are there to be used in articles, not to be WP:LAUNDRY listed on talk pages. And no this isn't any sort of green light to start WP:COATRACKing the article either. Timeshift (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you have to constantly assume bad faith. We are posting sources on the talk page while the main article is locked so that as a community we can produce something of a sufficient quality to be included in the article, using these sources. I assume that we are allowed to produce a draft, as a group, within the talk page itself, although maybe I am wrong. Once again, I'm new to this. But whether the articles are positive or negative is irrelevant; the information (except for the Internet Commenting Controversy, because it was a government policy) is directly related to Atkinson's own actions with little outside influence. You can accuse ANY media outlet of having a bias, but we're doing our best to work with what is avaialable. If you think there is malicious intent in the sources we propose to use, then supply your own alternative sources for the community to consider instead of just shooting down any attempt to add relevant and notable information to the article. Or, help us write the material yourself, if you want to be sure that we aren't doing anything wrong. PieMachine (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So then why not create User:PieMachine/Michael Atkinson and work at it to your heart's content there, references and all, and if it fits within wikipedia guidelines and policies and has the standard WP:CONSENSUS, it will be added? Too many times on wikipedia have people just used talk pages for negative reference dumping grounds. I'm jaded. If this isn't you, then you will have no issue following my suggestion, which is actually what everyone would agree with. Create your draft. But dumping refs here is not the way to do it and only breeds contempt. Sorry but that's the way it is. Prove me wrong. Timeshift (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I  felt that considering the heated opinions on all sides of the article's subject, working on additions within the talk-page and allowing for revisions and edits by the community from the beginning would help build consensus and reduce percieved bais from any party. I am merely working on what I can gather from WP:TPG in relation to 'Making Proposals' and 'Discussion of Edits'; especially considering the article itself is currently protected it would make sense to draft and discuss as a community within the talk-page in order to produce material which yields the best consensus. If you would prefer for contributors to work on their own pages, very well, but when we have produced material is it possible that upon proposing it in the talk page you could help refine and improve it rather then dismissing it straight away if it doesn't immediately meet the criteria?  PieMachine (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an example - Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft might be a better literal example for you. I'm no longer going to hit my head against a brick wall. Perhaps someone else's head has some life left in it. Good day. Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Sources 

message: Additions to this article are currently being drafted at Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft.  Please feel free to join in! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been unblocked. Please review the suggested additions at Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft (or make your own). They will be merged into the article soon according to reaction and consensus. PieMachine (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafting additions 

message: Please note I have requested the "full protection" status of this page be reviewed.  The article history does not appear to support a need for full protect status.  NPOV issues should be resolved through collaborative editing rather than deletes and blocks; see WP:FLAG. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have requested unprotection 

message: Atkinson became rather infamous as a blocker to the idea of introducing and R18+ rating for computer games in Australia. I just removed a chunk of information about that debate, which did not relate directly to Atkinson: Donama (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: R18+ Games Rating Information

message: This very large section seems to stray very far away from a biography on Michael Atkinson. Should it be removed or vastly shortened? Timeshift (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Organised crime non-association legislation" section 

message: I think Stavros did a fair thing by making the recent addition and something of that nature shoudl go on the page. Anyone have any other thoughts on this? Donama (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. He copped days of bad publicity, received a public dressing-down by the Premier, which doesn't happen very often for a senior MP from his own side, and had to promise to scale back his public commentary because of his behaviour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Atkinson reply needs a citation, or else just summarize what the news article says he did. Thinker78 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex industry retweets