Talk:Michael Leunig

message: I believe that there should be a section on controversies as there are multiple examples. In addition to the recent Age cartoon, I recall another one from 2002:
During Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, the editor of the Age refused to publish a cartoon of Leunig's that contrasted a Jew entering a concentration camp during World War II with an Israeli soldier entering a refugee camp. This was exhibited and discussed on ABC's Media Watch. Here are the links:
*Transcript of segment
*The Cartoon
--Viclamb 11:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia style guides discourage controversy/criticism sections because they tend to get bloated with all sorts of sensational content. It is better to just have a section his career and add an notable controversies with balance int o the text. Having a little ghetto for all the bad stuff about a subject is very poor style. Ashmoo (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Add section on controversies

message: I've removed the following text.
:Leunig has been criticised repeatedly for misogyny, including attacks on working mothers , women soldiers  and male-female relationships .  Leunig has also been attacked for anti-semitism, most notoriously in 2002, when  The Age refused to run a cartoon equating Israeli actions with the Holocaust.
:The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also provided considerable airtime to Leunig to disseminate his views on a range of political and philosophical issues, despite his lack of expertise in any areas he is asked to discuss.
Quite simply the allegations made in the text are WP:POV and the references do not back them up.   Agnte 13:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Text

message: a well-written section on the controversies would be fine, but what we're getting is vandalism and POV. I'd support a lock after it's been rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.23.138.75 (talk • contribs) .
:I'm not sure how useful the semi-protection will be but a number of editors are watching the article, I'm sure we'll be able to keep things tight. Agnte 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A section on criticisms would be a good idea. Please do not over-protect this self-indulgent and over-indulged Victorian artist. It is astonishing that no one has seen fit to mention the Olympic Games 'boy and his duck' fiasco, which irritated and mortified sizeable sections of  the Australian public and was, no doubt, an enormous puzzle for the rest of the world. (A big mistake by the local organisers of the Games.) Ombudswiki (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block & controversies 

message: Just after the opening of the 2006 Commonwealth Games I was talking to a family member who their knows ducks and geese and who swore to me that it was a goose rather than a duck that was used. Accordingly, I inserted, "(A live white goose was substituted, presumably because it would be easier to handle and better visible by cameras.)" That person has since seen footage of the duck in question and has recognised the error of the ways. Accordingly, I too must take responsibility and apologise to the Wikipedia community in general and the Games organisers in particular. Peter Ellis 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making a goose of myself! 

message: Am very amused that my persistent efforts to provide some balance to the hagiography that this entry consists of were met with claims of "POV" and lack of evidentiary support. And then you complain about me vandalising it! Much simpler simply to vandalise than to bother assembling the ample evidence that Leunig has attracted regular criticism for misogyny and anti-semitism, only for it to be rejected as not fitting the glowing endorsement the article is clearly intended to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.200.3 (talk • contribs) 
:Are you willing to discuss the edit you are trying to make? The edit has problems: it blanks large portions of the article, and it has rather obvious POV issues (I can see you dislike Leunig with a passion, and it shouldn't be possible to see the editor's bias in an article!). I have reverted the edit a couple of times and I'm not entirely happy doing so. But your style of blanking, big undiscussed rewrites, sockpuppetry, and refusal to discuss and compromise gives little choice. Please see the the Wikipedia policy on verifiability and neutrality. Is there some relevant verifiable encyclopedic fact you want reflected in the article? Weregerbil 10:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is not a soapbox. Either answer the question Is there some relevant verifiable encyclopedic fact you want reflected in the article? or go away. User talk:Hesperian 01:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Beucephalia edit

message: :Image:Gyanleunig.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Gyanleunig.jpg

message: I thought that these pages were supposed to be impartial, not a dog fight. Leunig has been alive for over half a century, and I can remember his work from when I was  teenager, and because he is not set in stone, his ideas and opinions have changed over time. Some his work I love, some I don't like at all, and some I think is ho-hum. HOWEVER the job of a cartoonist is to provoke thought, so apparently he is good at his job.
Coralhue (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the Agro?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Leunig. 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/20131215181213/http://www.google.com.au/help/ig/art/artists/leunig.html to http://www.google.com.au/help/ig/art/artists/leunig.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023202059/http://blip.tv/slowtv/michael-leunig-in-conversation-with-jane-sullivan-1839756 to http://blip.tv/slowtv/michael-leunig-in-conversation-with-jane-sullivan-1839756
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) 05:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is currently tagged as needing better balance. Leunig has been unafraid to express his opinions on a number of subjects, and I am sure there is ample published documentation both from him and from critics, to supply adequate references.
Also, there are some honours and cultural collaborations that are missing from the article. I know that there was a stage show based on some of his cartoon characters at the Sydney Opera House or some other national venue in the 1990s, and a series of colourful Australia Post stamps and postcards featuring his characters in 1998. Reify-tech (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements needed

message: Contrary to what has been claimed, Michael Leunig has not "been associated with the Anglican Communion" (whatever such a vague statement is meant to suggest) in any formal capacity. And the fact that one of his books is called A Common Prayer is not clear evidence that the book in any way represents his personal "interpretation" of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer as such. I have removed both of these claims from the article and they should not be included again in any form without any clear, reliable and verifiable evidence to support them. Yahboo (talk) 06:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leunig and Anglicanism 

message: Just a note to the author -- the ISBNs and years are good info but none of the links given under subheading 'Works in the Australian National Bibliographic Database' seem to be valid anymore - they just come up with 'page not found'. I can only assume the actual National Library of Australia rearranged their website since this section was written. Needs an update or edit when possible. ScorpionSquadron (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links under subheading 'Works in the Australian National Bibliographic Database'