Talk:Stephen Conroy

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject class rating

message: Conroy has been in the news in 2006 and 2007 for a personal issue: he and his wife commissioned a surrogate pregnancy, which is unusual in Australia. It's not directly relevant to his political career, but he seems to have chosen to make this public and therefore it would seem relevant to his article. Citations:  . "Stephen Conroy surrogacy" turns up a lot of archival hits on Google News. Thayvian (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this info to the article cojoco (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He had to have it done outside Victoria where it is banned. Those laws were easy to bypass as well, wern't they? 202.161.19.30 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Surrogate child

message: In relation to the text saying: "Whilst the the government (Labor party), projected an image of understanding the youth, technology and means of communicating, the filtering policy has been criticised as a waste of money and a failure to understand how these new means are utilised.".... I call that a reference be supplied or that the content be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.223.103 (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. --Michael Billington (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to reinstate. There are two separate premises in the statement. Firstly, "...projected an image of understanding youth, technology...". Evidence for this is the ALP use of Youtube, Facebook, Myspace etc during the 2007 campaign.  Secondly, "..policy has been criticised".  Evidence for this can be found in a number of forums participated in by Australian ISP representatives eg http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/934857.html. - CryRedMao  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CryRedMao (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What a waste of space. Whirlpool forums are not WP:RS, wikipedia is not a place for WP:SOAP, and the above is WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the news now, and Conroy has complained directly to the ISP, so it's relevant to WP cojoco (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supply references - Understanding youth

message: It is clear that for a political figure, the main policies of this person and the most significant criticisms of those policies are relevant to a biographic article. The link between the current Labor government and China is well established and the comparison between Conroy's censorship and China's great firewall has been noted on many news articles and by a wide range of critics. A balanced article should include all notable views on a given subject including both support and criticism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.220.108 (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think that these might actually be all of the notable views on the subject.  The only material I have found in support of the internet filter was a transcript of an interview he gave on Seven's Sunrise breakfast program, and even the points he made here have been contradicted by others. A balanced article does not require both support and criticism where criticism is the consensus view of the media and other interested parties. cojoco (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with China

message: While the internet filter is getting most of the Wikipedia attention, Stephen Conroy is also responsible for the Labor Government's broadband rollout.  There should be something in the article about this, too. cojoco (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: so it's addedcojoco (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadband rollout

message: His website, senatorconroy.com is currently parked, a bit strange. Kestrel7e7 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a link to his governmental website, which does have some material on it.  I wouldn't be surprised if his personal website had come under some sort of attack; this article does seem to see a lot of vandalism. cojoco (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there a reason why he has a .com and not a .com.au website? Is he bypassing Australian content laws? Why did he and his wife go to NSW for fertility treatment when it was against the laws in VIC? He likes to get around laws but expects everyone else to adhere to them. Darrenaustralia (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The senatorconroy.com website has nothing to do with him, it belongs to an American. He has no personal site as far as I can tell; his ministerial, parliamentary and party sites are all hosted in Australia and subject to Australian law. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen's website

message: Timeshift9 removed the comments by Michael Malone. I've re-instated these comments, for two reasons:
#The Michael Malone comment was specifically about Stephen Conroy, and as managing director of iiNet he is a notable person
#Why not remove Bevan Slattery's comments, which are not actually about Stephen Conroy?
Can we discuss this here before you do this again? Thanks. cojoco (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see the Slattery comments, they shouldn't be there either. A minister's wiki page is not a dumping ground for criticism from all and sundry. It has WP:BLP issues. It is obvious i'm going to get nowhere with people wanting to soapbox, I'll take other action on this. By all means state, factually, what is being changed, but the opinions of people who manage/direct/run ISPs who have vested interests have no place here. Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed both comments from the article - a biographical article is not the place to debate the pros and cons of a major social issue which goes back years. Someone's unencyclopaedic comment about the worst communications minister really isn't appropriate either - it's an interested party's personal opinion and may have been expressed to slant the debate (what about Alston, for instance?) - it's the same reason we don't include quotes from Hansard in people's articles. I have a *lot* of sympathy for the view that the Internet filtering system being proposed is bad, but the place to present pros and cons and views on it is Internet censorship in Australia. Orderinchaos 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. cojoco (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[Michael Malone (iiNet)]]

message: There are appropriate places to describe the (lack of) merit of the rabbit-proof firewall. This isn't one of them. There's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Australia) and Internet censorship in Australia for starters. Andjam (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Internet censorship in Australia is the place for it, not the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Australia). Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coatracking 

message: His biography was not available on the Parliamentary webpage for a while; it now appears to be back: Stephen Conroy's Biography  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cojoco (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliametary biography is back 

message: You crave a free, open, truthful internet, yet you're prepared to directly contradict yourself by vandalising a webpage. Be against the policies, I am too, but vandalising a page and calling people homos as an insult does no justice. Timeshift (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and if we want Wikipedia to help people know the facts so that this issue can be debated to the correct conclusion, everyone needs to act like adults.  I got the page protected for a week in November by adding a note at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; maybe somebody should ask for something more permanent. cojoco (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've protected the page as suggested here. -- Chuq (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is full protection required? Timeshift (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think I did - my mistake - fixed now! --  Chuq (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A message to those repeatedly vandalising this page 

message: These two statements appear to contradict each other:
From the ABC interview in external links:
STEPHEN CONROY: I've often had people raise my quotes from my contribution in that debate. I think often people haven't read the entire speech.
I support a legislative framework, as I said before. I don't think these are matters that should be left entirely to scientists. I think there is a role for the Parliament in determining some of these issues.
I think the point I made was that while I would prefer there to be a parliamentary framework for the RU486, I think it was, debate, if the actual issue was before Parliament I would probably vote for the distribution of the pill.
People often say, oh no Steve's a conservative Catholic, but they won't ever find on my voting record something that backs that up. I voted against the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. I voted for some of the cloning debate. So I voted in, I like to consider the issues on their merits and I voted what some would characterise as conservatively and some would characterise as progressively on a number of issues.
From The Age article cited for the RU486 comment:
He underlined his socially conservative credentials this year by voting against the abortion drug RU486 in a conscience vote.
Can anyone point to what his position actually is on these issues, and on what he actually voted for? Ta! cojoco (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RU486 

message: I think the Internet Censorship in Australia material merits one paragraph, but it seems to be growing bit by bit.  I think we should cull it back to one paragraph soon, and I don't think that comments on Wikileaks bear much relevance to SC's biography. Also, despite all the discussion, the only action has been on ICIA.  I think we could do three paragraphs, one on each of ICIA, NBN and DTV? cojoco (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely though, the censorship stuff is going to define his career. Historians will certainly look back at him that way. Bit like Nixon and watergate I suppose. 219.90.156.104 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, but the current material doesn't have all that much to do with SC. There's not very much to link SC with his party's policies: he doesn't even seem like a proper bible-basher. Will history judge SC, or will they judge the Labor Party?  Do any reliable sources even care about this question? cojoco (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've culled a lot of the ACMA material which doesn't have much to do with SC: it's well covered in ACMA and Internet censorship in Australia - cojoco (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cull internet censorship and add NBN and DTV? 

message: I've requested permanent semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection cojoco (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's protected for three months. cojoco (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for it again, as it's been vandalized four times since coming off protection. cojoco (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent Semi-protection requested 

message: someone will want to add a section here regarding his position on this, and the emerging reports that he'll reform copyright so that ISPs will be held accountable for copyright actions on their network. - 15.195.201.87 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the story: Film industry loses iiNet download case. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Also: Court clears illegal internet downloads, Online copyright battle just beginning with landmark case Mitch Ames (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Apparently Conroy now wants the film and internet industries to ... work out a code of conduct to prevent pirating ... rather than ... legislation changes. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFACT VS IINET 

message: Due to the increasing controversy surrounding Stephen Conroy, I suggest we add a "Controversy" section. Recently Conroy has been involved in a scandal involving Kerry Stokes, owner of Channel 7, and a separate issue involving using his political capital to get his friend, Mike Kaiser, employed in a senior role at the company set up to create the Government's National Broadband Network (NBN).
These controversies need to be added to this page to keep it current and accurate.
References:
http://www.news.com.au/national/minister-in-secret-snow-dinner-with-mogul/story-e6frfkw9-1225830083475
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/09/2813886.htm?section=justin
==
Additional reports have emerged that Conroy is under fire over. This Controversy section needs to be added. I'm unable to do so myself as the article is locked. Can we agree upon a section and add it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitcloud1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave your text here.  If it seems good, someone will add it. cojoco (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section 

message: I removed the link to the ACMA blacklist. WP:EL normally forbids links to porn or shock sites, and would definitely forbid links to illegal material under State of Florida law. The existence of the list is already mentioned in the article, but the full list should not be linked.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the list itself is illegal under Florida law. Just saying... Gregory.currie (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACMA blacklist 

message: If anyone can find something positive to say about Conroy please either add it here or in the article. We need NPOV, but I'm really struggling. Gregory.currie (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that is reliably sourced can go in the article, but at the moment it has become top heavy with criticism. It is disappointing that this edit was restored, because it makes the "Politics" section look like a coatrack against Conroy. Is this really necessary?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I certainly don't like to see this kind of stuff here.  It doesn't really reflect on his accomplishments or on his abilities as a person, it just seems like sneering.  We should really only have a bare minimum of stuff here about his policies; the details of his portfolio should go in the NBN, Freeview, Internet censorship in Australia, and ACMA articles.  The issues are complicated enough without every little petty detail about who said every little thing. cojoco (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  Oh, also, I think that if we removed a lot of the negative stuff which doesn't add value, we would quickly return the article to some kind of balance. It might be worth mentioning that much media attention is negative, because it is, but only if there was a citation for it. cojoco (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's now perfectly balanced. Gregory.currie (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs Balance 

message: Hello, as to an edit of January 3: I do not think the epithet Stalinist should be pinned on a politician, since the term is too ambiguous and laden. Can anyone check this? I will not resort to a revert war here. Thanks, Super48paul (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been reverted again, because it is unconstructive and not WP:NPOV. It is also the work of a single IP editor who keeps adding it. I have also requested pending changes for the page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalinist? 

message: I've removed "and also by the Australian Young Labor leader, Kerrie Kahlon, who described said the bills "fundamentally breach the liberal ideal of a free press"." as the views' of Young Labor leaders are not notable. Alans1977 (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Conroy. 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/20090521213707/http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/national_broadband_network to http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/national_broadband_network
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603041132/http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/39475-iinet-says-sen-conroy-lied to http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/39475-iinet-says-sen-conroy-lied
*Added archive https://archive.is/20060820183618/http://www.volleyballvictoria.com.au/about.php to http://www.volleyballvictoria.com.au/about.php
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) 11:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified