Talk:Zaky Mallah

Protected edit request - Turnbull inquiry

Page is now semi protected, so you can make the changes yourself. I agree that the section needs improvement, but not in the way you suggest. I will do some work, and you are welcome to improve upon it. Tuntable (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd request that administrators review Abbott Government § Citizenship which I added and has sources from a range of outlets. I believe that some of these sources should be added to an NPOV sentence on the background about how the government wants to introduce new citizenship laws to strip dual nationals of citizenship if they are suspected of fighting with a terrorist organization. If the current section on that page is acceptable, please produce a summary, perhaps with a seealso link.

Given that the issue is a WP:CONTROVERSY subject, the summary here should focus on VER facts:

• Mallah met with ABC producers before the show went to air (9News)

• The ABC producers apologised for including Mallah as a live commentator with a hot mic, without the ability of the ABC to vet his comments beforehand (ABC.net.au official statement) - this can be included without POV commentary.

• The Q&A appearance has triggered a government inquiry by Communications Minister Turnbull (TheAus SMH). Abbott has said “heads should roll” and Turnbull has stated "there needs to be consequences from this."

• I believe it may be noteworthy to include a comment that there was a video question by David Hicks to John Howard in 2010 (TheAus) and from Julian Assange to Julia Gillard in 2011 (TheAus)

This doesn't need room for a battleground over POV commentary pieces.

If Commentary pieces have to be included, I would suggest Sam de Brito as positive in the SMH,(The Age column) and Paul Sheehan (journalist) as negative in the SMH/The Age (Sheehan column). I believe these provide a reasonable cross-section of broadly centrist political attitudes. The SMH/Age are reasonable, established, mainstream non-tabloid papers, unlike outlets that pander to the political fringes.

Thanks for considering the request. Let me know if anybody wants more specific language I'd recommend adding. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Links for Gang Bank comment

Just noting these for future work on the article. Other relevant links most welcome.

Rita Panahi http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/islam-you-have-a-very-serious-problem/story-fni0cwl5-1227178806993

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/subscribe/news/1/index.html?sourceCode=HSWEB_WRE170_a&mode=premium&dest=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/australia-is-not-a-home-for-extremism/story-fnpp4dl6-1227361956631&memtype=anonymous

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/head-20150629-gi0gh9.html

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/why-arent-all-qas-sexist-panelists-put-under-the-same-scrutiny-as-zaky-mallah-20150630-gi1e6v.html

https://twitter.com/ritapanahi/status/554756317626126336

Miranda Devine http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/setting_the_stage_for_young_islamic_rage/

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/we_must_not_bow_to_a_pushy_minority/

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2015/jul/06/qanda-greg-sheridan-abc-abbott-ban-zakky-mallah-video (Says govt too strong.)

Editing of Q&A

Thank you user:Aronzak for your help with this article. In particular for adding the details of the Q&A enquirers which had been missing. However, you have also removed some content that I think is entirely relevant. If you disagree strongly, then please present your reasoning below.

In particular:-

• Scott's reference to "Public Broadcaster" was in direct response to Abbot's charge. I have made that clearer in the text.

• When discussing the moral character of people on the show, Ciabo's and Morris's comments are absolutely relevant. The question is whether the extremely strong censure of Mallah is fair and balanced, or whether Mallah is being held unfairly to a different standard than others. (Personally, I hold a minister of the crown to a higher standard than a kid off the street. But that is for the reader to decide after Wikipedia has given them the facts upon which to base a decision.)

• Mallah's had been accused of inciting terrorism with his remarks on the show. His (not unreasonable) explanation is required for balance.

Mallah had appeared on several programs before the Q&A incident, and that should be added to the last paragraph if someone could look them up. Tuntable (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, about a few policies. WP:NPOV means that wikipedia describes debates, not engage in them with wikipedia's voice. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV means that statements of opinion should be attributed to precise quotes with the exact person saying them, rather than interpolating opinions. WP:DUE means that minor details in the recent news media (WP:RECENTISM) should not be given disproportionate coverage, or trivial details included. WP:COATRACK means that articles should be about one thing, not spend substantial time talking about other things. WP:RS means that reliable sources should be used, especially to make verifiable statements about controversies rather than opinion pieces that make assertions about controversies. Article sourcing needs to be higher for biographical and controversial subjects. WP:SOAP means that Wikipedia should be used to provide information on verifiable facts, not be used by any particular partisan group to promote their aims (Wikipedia has further policies against conflicts of interest of editors)

On the following

• Scott's reference to "Public Broadcaster" was in direct response to Abbot's charge. I have made that clearer in the text.

Consideration here is WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK - this is a page about Mallah, content can be added to appropriate articles, whether they be Mark Scott (businessman) or Q&A (Australian talk show) or ABC Board. Wikipedia describes disputes, not engage in them.

• When discussing the moral character of people on the show, Ciabo's and Morris's comments are absolutely relevant. The question is whether the extremely strong censure of Mallah is fair and balanced, or whether Mallah is being held unfairly to a different standard than others. (Personally, I hold a minister of the crown to a higher standard than a kid off the street. But that is for the reader to decide after Wikipedia has given them the facts upon which to base a decision.)

Coverage of secondary issues should be limited per WP:COATRACK and WP:DUE. Also, Wikipedia does not publish original research - meaning that if an article is from 2013, it cannot be editorialised over, as this violates synthesis - meaning that new opinion has been synthesised from a source that doesn't describe the current dispute. Wikipedia should describe disputes, not push opinions of particular editors. The opinion piece by Jenny Noyes in Daily Life violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV because Daily Life is a specialist pro-feminist media outlet (not a general one) and opinion pieces do not meet the standards of source reliability and neutrality needed for a controversial claim about a living person.

The goal of Wikipedia is not to be "fair" by the standards of an opinion piece or an editor's personal views. Adding content that synthesises new positions from old sources that don't mention the current issue is a violation of OR.

NPOV means that wikipedia describes disputes, but doesn't engage in disputes - poisoning the well by introducing SYNTH content is a form of WP:SOAP activism - not an impartial way to describe the dispute.

• Mallah's had been accused of inciting terrorism with his remarks on the show. His (not unreasonable) explanation is required for balance.

Per WP:DUE the coverage should be relative to its merits (small quote) and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV comments should be attributed inside non-interpolated quotes that don't use wiki-voice, but restrict opinions to quotes attributed to their sources.

Per WP:BRD the material should be discussed before being re-added.

If you think that my judgement of your source reliability and neutrality are wrong, you can raise issues at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

@Tuntable:

-- Aronzak (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Separate Page?

user:Aronzak, so let us go through your issues one at a time.

Your first assertion was " this is a page (only) about Mallah,". Currently this page has become the primary source for the Q&A issue. So which of the following solutions do you propose?

• Create a new page "Zaky Mallah Q&A Incident"
• Make the Q&A article the primary source? (In which case much of the material on this page should be moved.)
• Leave this page to be the primary page about the Q&A incident. In which case wider material is indeed relevant.
• Consider the Q&A incident to be not notable.

I'm not sure that the incident needs a separate article from Mallah, but I would not object to it. The second is also possible, but there is so much controversial work on Q&A that I am worried that the article will grow too long. My preference is the third. I reject the 4th, obviously.

Which option would you like to pursue? I would accept any except the forth.

(Please do not quote wiki lore at me. People that do so inevitable think that only their opinion is NPOV, and everyone else is POV. That is not a helpful approach. So let us stick to the facts of the issue.) Tuntable (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tuntable: the page is fine with the current information on it, you just can't use 2015 coverage to attack public figures over what they said in 2013 without a reliable and neutral source making the link. In depth quotes by Mark Scott, or extensive analysis of his views about public broadcasters, probably belong on his page, or the page ABC board. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Um, well of course you would think the page is fine because you were the last person to edit it, by removing my contribution. What I want to know, specifically, is whether you consider this page to be the appropriate primary place to discuss the incident. That would seem natural, and normal practice, but if you would like to have a different place then that could also be done. Tuntable (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If you propose adding new material that substantially covers issues related only tangentially to Mallah (eg Mark Scott's philosophy) then propose it on talk and if editors think there would be merit in including it in another article they can say so. The page Q&A (Australian talk show) is not a BLP page, and isn't semi-protected. -- Aronzak (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will move all of the Q&A material to the Q&A page. I do not really think that is the best place for it, but it is OK. Note that I am the one doing all the work and you are just deleting. Please consider making positive contributions to Wikipedia. Tuntable (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"In 2003 he was arrested under the 2005 Act"

I know ASIO have stuffed up in the past, but surely they didn't try to use a law two years before it was even enacted? This is one example of the poor quality of this article... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

One of many. The Austlii sources seem to have gone west. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I've done some digging and I think I've found the answer. Page 6 of this journal article suggests that it was the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 that introduced new offences into the federal Criminal Code. Based on the archived article that is linked to in the offending sentence, I assume he was charged under this provision:

101.6 Other acts done in preparation for, or planning, terrorist acts

(1)A person commits an offence if the person does any act in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

So I am going to have a go at rewording the sentence. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be good indeed if some more solid detail about his case could be added, thanks. Tuntable (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Call for discussion

I have a google news alert on Mallah, and returned to this article to add coverage of Singapore denying him entry. I noticed a subsection with the title "Joining the Syrian civil war". That is problematic, as the public record shows that he claimed he was observing and documenting the Arab Spring in Syria, and doing so in a way that was compliant with Australian law that barred Australians from engaging in hostilities. Australian authorities ignored his blog, for years, until they took him into custody, on suspicion of engaging in hostilities, only to have to release him, when they could not find that he had engaged in hostilities. Some might speculate that he had engaged in hostilities, but in a way Australian security officials couldn't document. But wikipedia articles are not the place for unreferenced speculation.

So I changed the subsection title to "Observing the Syrian civil war".

Originally the subsection was entitled "Travel to Turkey and Syria during the Arab Spring".

I see it was FunkMonk who gave the subsection the title I think is misleading, way back in 2013.

Does anyone want to suggest alternate titles for this subsection? Geo Swan (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)