Talk:BP Refinery v Tracey

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the court in BP Refinery v Tracey upheld a decision to reinstate an employee fired by BP for posting a meme video from the 2004 film Downfall? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/aug/11/downfall-bp-worker-sacked-for-hitler-meme-wins-200000-in-compensation
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: - Hi all. I consider myself good at authoring articles, but a total novice at writing good DYK hooks
• The facts are: BP were negotiating wages with their employees. These negotiations were heated. An employee made a video using the Downfall scene that's been turned into many memes. He got fired, and the court ultimately reinstated him and he was back paid over $200,000.
• Any reviewer, please do feel free to suggest alternatives. They are very welcome.
• QPQ: The Jane

Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 04:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/BP Refinery v Tracey; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I'll AGF minor discrepancy in date/size (the article was ~295 words until few days ago, when it was was expanded to ~1420, which I guess is a fraction under 5x). Given that this is your fourth DYK nom, as you claim, I think we can ignore such minor issues (but please try to carry out the QPQ review of another nomination; I am AGF-ing here that you'll do so soon). The article looks and reads well, copyvio spotcheck did not pick up any issues (some quotations, clearly marked, are ok), hook is fine, sources are good. All GTG (with AGF for the QPQ review). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Wow!! Thanks for such a fast review. I really appreciate that. The criteria I nominated the article under was "created". It was developed over a few months in draft space, but only moved to article space today. So per WP:DYKRULES isn't "the date the article first appears in article space is counted as the first day towards the DYK seven-day rule"? Just confirming I read that right. I will go and find a DYK to review. Thank you again! MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

MaxnaCarta, Thanks for claryfing. Indeed, than all is good just waiting for the QPQ review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

QPQ done, confirming GTG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:BP Refinery v Tracey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammielh (talk · contribs) 15:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I will pick up this review. I do work in the law (although not in Australia) so hopefully I should be able to assess it from the perspective of both technical and non-technical readers. Let me know if you have any questions. Sammielh (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead and infobox

• The case citation should be added to the lead and the case name should be bolded Y
• Can you add AustLII links to the citations in the infobox? Y
• I would amend the first sentence of the lead to give the ruling of the court rather than the question it is considering Y

Now reads: was a decision by the Full Federal Court of Australia ruling ruled the the rejection of an application for unfair dismissal had been decided upon incorrectly by the Fair Work Commission(FWC).

• I'm not sure whether "parodic video" is a proper phrase, I would just say "parody video" ?

Per the Cambridge dictionary, parodic is an adjective and so the the sentence is syntactically correct. Happy to change if you still think it warrants this to read better.

No worries then, I've just never heard it used but it does seem gramatically correct.

Background

• (Optional) It might be useful to provide slightly more background where possible, e.g. McGowan 2020 says he was a technician and the refinery is in Western Australia and Forsyth 2020 has more details about the labour negotiations Y
• I would consider re-arranging this section a bit, to discuss the video in one paragraph rather than splitting it as is currently done; the sentence about portraying the BP management as Nazis should maybe come later, after the use of the movie as a meme is explained ?

With this one, I would welcome you giving it a go and dropping your idea here. I quite like the structure as it is as the story flows well. The introductory paragraph sets the scene, then the meme and its content in this circumstance is explained, followed by the consequences.

With more information included about the negotiations, I've just combined the paragraphs about the video and made a few other changes but feel free to revert.

• "The video showed a scene from the movie Downfall, in which Adolf Hitler acts upset and belligerent when he is notified that his regime has lost World war II." Y

Please explain what change you believe is needed?

It appears this change has now been made (it was just grammatical).

• Wikilink meme Y
• Check quotations throughout the article, there are some curly quotations and "Downfall Hitler meme'" which appears to be a mistake
• I would include some of the details from Forsyth 2020 about the distribution of the video as he notes the significance that it occurred during work, using their equipment
• Check the grammar in the image caption Y

If you are referring to the additional apostrophe, it's now removed. Otherwise, more detail needed please.

I've made the change, I think it just needed an 's' after the apostrophe. Again, feel free to change if you prefer it a different way.

• Where you have multiple sentences in a row that are backed up by the same citation (e.g. paragraph 3 in background is cited to the same source), you don't have to link it after every sentence
• Is salary in lieu of notice the same as PILON in the UK and, if so, possibly worth linking? ?

It is indeed the same, but as PILON is an article referencing British labour law, do you think it's still worth it?

It's probably a wider discussion about whether that article should be globalised but probably best not to link at the moment.

• I would specify that he was fired for having "distributed material which is highly offensive and inappropriate" and breach of "[BP's] Code of Conduct and policies on respect in the workplace and permitted use of IT equipment" (per Zhou 2019 and Forsyth 2020) as the legal reason, rather than simply due to production of the video Y

Legal proceedings

• I would add in a sentence or two about what unfair dismissal is to help non-legal readers Y
• "Melanie Binet rejected his claim he was unfairly dismissed"
• Binet's name is mispelled in the fourth sentence (and in the Impact section) Y
• "finding the video did not compare BP management to Hitler, Nazis or mass murderers" this is a bit repetitive to the previous section, can probably be removedY
• "Rather, it compared the position BP reached in the negotiations with that which the Nazi regime was faced at the end of World War II" I would perhaps rephrase, this is currently confusingly worded Y
• I would be inclined to cite the BBC article in addition to Fox News to source the quotations from the Full Bench Y
• Add a sentence about what the result of the appeal was (i.e. that he got his job back) Y
• "BP then applied to the Full Federal Court seeking a writ of certiorari –} effectively requesting it quash the decision made by the Full Bench of the FWC on the grounds that its decision was contrary to law"
• (Optional) It might be useful to put dates in the article to provide some context (they are present in most of the sources) and I would suggest perhaps explaining the relationship between Tracey and the AWU as some of the sources seem to indicate they were acting as his legal representatives

Impact

• I would be inclined to remove the refusal of BP to comment, it may just be that they refused to comment for that newstory and it seems a bit POV to include Y
• (Optional) A number of sources (Sydney Morning Herald and the Guardian) refer to a 2013 case in Hong Kong relating to the same meme, could be worth mentioning ? Perhaps at a later date? I'd prefer to spend some time expanding on that beyond the GA period.

No worries, just thought I would flag it if you intended to do anything with this article post GA.

• There is a reference in the infobox to a further action, what was this in relation to? Y

This is more or less a nothingburger. It's just a hearing to determine compensation as the federal court can't award that. It's the FWC's jurisdiction. However explaining that will make the article very technical. I do mention in sentence 2 of compensation the FWC awarded compensation for the period he had off work.

That was what I assumed but thought I would check.

Reference spot-check

• I would rephrase the second sentence in the second paragraph of the Background section as there is some close paraphrasing (notably the use of the phrase "starting point") Y
• "Tracey's video was posted in a Facebook group with the title: "Hitler Parody [collective bargaining] Negotiations not going [BP's] way"." is not verified by page 1 of Schwabach (2012) and the source was published before this case so seems unlikely to be correct Y

This is still cited to Schwabach 2012.

• McGowan (2020) cites that Binet said it was inappropriate and offensive but I don't see where it cites the "reasonable person" portion or the sentence prior Y (appreciate this finding, I think I had interpreted her words too much and this was not supported properly by the text, nice find)
• I would rephrase "The central issue in dispute was whether Tracey's actions constituted a valid reason for dismissal" as it is quite similar to the source wording Y changed to primary, but at the same time this is fine I feel because facts cannot be copyrighted and there is insufficient creativity in this sentence to constitute a copyvio issue for close paraphrasing, and it's super short. Changed central issue to primary.
• I would rephase "Vice President of the FWC Adam Hatcher stated thousands of similar parodies had been posted to the internet over a ten year period, and the role of the Full Bench of the FWC was to decide whether the video was objectively offensive" as it is a bit close to the source wording, perhaps "Vice President of the FWC Adam Hatcher stated that thousands of similar parodies had been posted to the internet since the meme hit its peak in 2010 and the Full Bench would apply an objective test to determine the offensiveness of the video." with the additional information sourced to the link provided Y
• The reference to The Age is not found in the Forsyth (2020) source (Oops, the reason I got this mixed up is because The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are the same paper. One is Sydney Edition the other is Melbourne edition. I got the two mixed up, and changed it from The Age to SMH. Thank you. Y
• The CNBC link goes to the Guardian article Y

Misc.

• The Flickr link for the FWC photo is dead, could you provide an archived link so I can check Y I was unable to find an archived link so I removed the image.

I am a little concerned about the source to text verification if you would be able to check all of them (there are a few that I haven't been able to access, although I'll look into how to) and make sure everything is correct. Please could you also check for close paraphrasing, I've flagged a few issues but there seem to be more if you run Earwig. I will place on hold for now. Once you respond to the below, I'll take a second look. Sammielh (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Y

@Sammielh I legit am so grateful you found all these improvements. I think all of them are valuable finds and will ping you once addressed. Cheers MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: I've gone back through and it looks good. Can you just check the citation for the video being posted to the Facebook group with that title as this appears to have been missed. When you added in the sentence on the definition of unfair dismissal, you also forgot to leave a citation for the sentence before. Once those are resolved, I am happy to promote. Sammielh (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sammielh thanks very much! All done. Sorry I missed that last reference. Really appreciate your thoroughness. A pleasure working with you. Please let me know if you have anything nominated I can review for you. Thanks again. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@MaxnaCarta: Looks great, promoting! I'm glad to see good quality legal articles. I have Marjorie Lynch and Brenda Frazier up for GAN at the moment if you are interested in either of those, but no worries if not! Sammielh (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sammielh thanks! I will review one. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)