This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Friendlyjordies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I believe there are issues with the impartiality of the 'YouTube career' section of this article. Do tenuous, retaliatory accusations from a single individual (J Barilaro) warrant multiple mentions? "....Barilaro later described as having "racist undertones"." "....John Barilaro describing the comments as "desperate". Another racism accusation present in the article is from an anonymous source.
Jordan Shanks is an increasingly prominent independent journalist in a country with a powerful media monopoly. Uncritical repetition of opinions/criticism about Jordan Shanks that originate via hegemonic corporate media raise issues of neutrality, scandal mongering and lack of variety in sources. The bias I perceived in this article prompted me to create my first Wikipedia account and start this discussion. Flowerconfession ( talk) 17:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed Independent Australia as a source because: A. They are not a reliable source (see discussion here) and B. They cannot be used as a BLP source in any case.
User:Melmann reverted this with some comments about Australian Press Council membership. That's as may be, but unless I see some super-radical changes at IA - like not being an opinion blog, for starters - they aren't a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
There are a number of less-dodgy but still unsuitable sources being used in this article. I'll accept reviews of shows from sources that do is as their business, but since when is Crikey a reliable source for biographical details? -- Pete ( talk) 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Fortunately, we do not need to worry about whether Independent Australia is a reliable source or not, since its inclusion here is to create original synthesis. Sources that do not discuss Shanks or Langker cannot be used to support an argument, or suggest anything, about the arrest of Langker. This article is not about the "Fixated Persons Unit" or its appropriate use. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Skyring: Please stop removing sources without discussing why. Saying 'Not RS for BLP' is not explaining, and unexplained content removal is vandalism. Melmann 16:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
An argument could be made that there has been a "Streisand Effect" associated with the recent JB interactions. However, hard evidence about the number of subscribers is somewhat sparse.
The Wayback Machine has one snapshot of FriendlyJordies, dated July 14 2020:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200714075544//info/en/?search=Friendlyjordies
The InfoBox associated with that snapshot states that FJ has:
Subscribers <433,000 (14/07/20)
Apparently, the InfoBox has been updated as of 1 June 2021, and shows the YouTube information as:
Subscribers 501,000 (June 2021) [1]
With Citation [1] being: "About FriendlyJordies": https://www.youtube.com/user/friendlyjordies/about
My main idea is that the subscriber count crossing the half-a-million threshold is worthy of some text in the article. I believe that some of the MSM articles from earlier this year/late last year noted that he had something above 400,000 subscribers, but my poor memory suggests 430,000-470,000.
If there has been a sharp increase recently, this may be worth noting.
Replying to myself re YouTube numbers: As at Saturday, 19 Jun 2021, YouTube lists 514k followers. Averaging 13k increase over 19 days, this is 680 additional followers per day. If 18 days, average is about 720 per day. Main point is that FJ is creating significant interest, which is turning into a measurable "followers" metric.
Thanks for putting "501k" in the Summary paragraph. Perhaps just say "over half a million" followers, since the change above is non-trivial. Perhaps review the numbers and the summary at the start of July: 720 per day, times 30 days in June, gives over 20k added in June alone.
193.115.124.80 ( talk) 03:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
115.64.197.209 ( talk) 02:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Further update: The Federal Parliament "Online Safety Bill 2021", which has been moving along for roughly two years, is now suddenly being rushed through Second Reading in the Senate by the Government.
During a Debate in the Senate about the Bill, Sen. Louise Pratt explicitly included a reference [1] that this bill could enable, at a Federal level, powers such as the "Fixated Persons Unit" powers in existence in Queensland and NSW:
[...] Also consider the case of John Barilaro, the New South Wales Deputy Premier, who is reported to have pursued YouTube comedian Friendlyjeordies with charges of stalking and intimidation. According to reports, detectives from New South Wales police fixated persons unit, acting on a complaint by Barilaro, arrested Kristo Langker at his family home in Dulwich Hill on 4 June and charged him with two offences. He was charged with two counts of stalking and intimidating with an intent to cause fear or physical or mental harm. Here we see that, given the provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme go to related concepts of menace, harass or offend, it is simply not beyond the realm of contemplation to imagine a politician asserting that a journalist, a satirist or a comedian might fall foul of these provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme, even with clause 233 on the implied freedom of political communication. So we believe there can and must be greater transparency for review and oversight to ensure that this scheme is working to get the balance of human rights and freedom of expression right. [...]
115.64.197.209 (
talk) 03:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Author of the "Sen. Pratt" comment here; I agree with Pete that MelMann has somewhat confused State and Federal juristictions in his comment above. Apparently (no citation, sorry), the Federal party(s) are looking to "clear the decks" -- backlog of legislation remaining to be passed -- ahead of a Federal electtion. A side-effect of passing this legislation quickly -- allowing only a few (eight) days for Debate -- is that it may provide additional mechanisms to attack online critique by people such as FJ.
However, Sen. Jess Walsh, as part of the Debate on this Second Rading in the Senate regarding this bill, has this explicit criticism of "eight days" to comprehed the bill and over 370 comments, resulting in 56 items warranting further study/debate [2]:
It has been over 2½ years since the Briggs review recommended a single up-to-date online safety act. Let's look at what has happened since the Briggs review. It was back in October 2018 that Lynelle Briggs handed down the review of the Australia's online safety laws. In May 2019, during the election, the government made its first promise to introduce a new online safety act. In July 2019, the minister stood up in question time and again promised that an online safety act was coming. In September 2019, in response to Labor's questions about online hate speech, racism and the rise of right-wing extremism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist attack, the minister stood up in this parliament and yet again promised that a new online safety act was coming. In December 2019, there was another announcement, another promise, that an online safety act was coming. In September 2020, when asked about what they were doing to curb graphic content on social media in the wake of a self-harm video on Facebook and TikTok, they stood up again and promised a new online safety act. In October 2020, this time in an op-ed in the west, there was another promise that an online safety act was on the way. Then in December 2020, just two days before Christmas, this government finally released their exposure draft, with the consultation process ending only eight business days before they tabled the bill in the parliament.
The government is asking us to believe that it took two years to draft a bill but only eight days to read and consider 376 submissions. This short time frame at the end of a long drawn-out process has undermined confidence in the government's exposure draft, and stakeholders are therefore rightly concerned that submissions have not been given proper consideration. The department confirmed that, from 376 submissions, they had identified 56 issues that warranted further consideration. From those 56 issues, only seven amendments have been made. So the government has spent years talking about this bill just to rush through the work at the last minute.
193.115.124.80 ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
As per the notice at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friendlyjordies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
It's always interesting when an IP editor gets involved in a BLP article. If you are the subject of the article, say so. We are here to help present an encyclopaedia article in the best possible format, and your help in finding sources can be gold. But this talk page isn't about the subject and general discussion. It's about the article. We can't do anything about the subject, but we can do a lot about how we report it. -- Pete ( talk) 21:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, original "IP" contributor here (my ISP doles out my on-line IP on a session-by-session basis, which is why it can vary). The "notes/hints" that led me to the sources above (including Kevin Rudd's "Why I donated to friendlyjordies’ legal defence fund" blog post) mostly came via Reddit snippets (r/Australia, to be exact).
One final facet of the "Online Safety Bill 2021" that concernes me (in its current form) is that it potentially reduces the time limit for a Contributor/Provider to remove flagged content from 48 hours to 24: Part 5, Section 65, Item 1(g)(i). I am a newbie to Wikipedia editing (which is why I've buried most of my contributions in a "talk" page). However, I feel that the items I've raised are non-trivial to the question of government/internet interaction in Australia, which is why I've pointed them out. Is there a better way of managing this (e.g. start a new page for the proposed Bill?)
In closing, thank you so much for your tolerance of my input.
193.115.76.189 ( talk) 09:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
[Removed from top of "Sourcing" discussion above. New posts need to be at the bottom.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)]
Saw "citation needed" on the statement "commentators have noted Shanks' partially Southern European heritage" and produced a citation of a commentator doing exactly that. I hope that people here aren't essentially arguing "only Rupert Murdoch-owned sources count", in the discussion below, because that would violate the NPoV policy of Wikipedia. When a company owns a near-monopoly on the press, claiming opposition sources are not good sources destroys the neutral point of view. -- Melissia ( talk) 12:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
There have been two comments referring to the Murdoch media "monopoly" or "near-monopoly". Firstly, this is an exaggeration. There are many news outlets in Australia which are not owned by Murdoch: the ABC, Nine Fairfax, Channel 7, Channel 10, SBS, The Guardian, The Saturday Newspaper etc etc. Secondly, how is this relevant? As far as I can see, we currently only cite Murdoch media sources four times in this article. Why keep harping on about Murdoch?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I am all for improving the quality of sources, but removing uncontroversial content simply because the source isn't great, or removing cites and replacing them with "cite needed", is obviously a retrograde step and not improving the article. For instance, you removed the cite supporting the lead sentence "an Australian political commentator, comedian and YouTuber." Are you challenging this statement? Do you believe it violates WP:BLP? How? If not, then improving the article would be finding a better source, not removing the existing one. Similarly you removed the sentence detailing some of the people he has interviewed. Again, are you challenging this? You've removed it before saying it is of no significance, but the notability of the people he has interviewed plays a large part in establishing his notability. Removing it does not improve the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Presumably this is an article about a person - though it appears to be advertising for the channel and its income, rather than about the person per se - so why is so much of it taken up with breathless news about trivial legal matters? -- Pete ( talk) 22:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the ambivalence around the court proceedings, I'll put this here for discussion. Should we mention that "Shanks has raised about $1m to fund his defamation battle against New South Wales deputy premier John Barilaro and the criminal defence of his producer, Kristo Langker". The donations came from "tens of thousands of Australians". We probably shouldn't mention Shanks' cheeky comment that "We have received more than 24,000 individual donations – that’s more people who first voted John Barilaro into parliament". Some of the donations will be used to defend David McBride who is being represented by the same law firm as Shanks. [3]
References
The most notable thing about friendlyjordies is the legal action. Im sure most people who have heard of the channel know about it because of the court case. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
We should follow the guideline at WP:YTN regarding subscriber count, which is to use a secondary source. this one gives an indication of the money flowing in. -- Pete ( talk) 23:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
A breathless "newspaper red-hot-news" item here. appearing on the Talk page rather than the actual page, noting a couple of YouTube milestones that have been reached over the last fortnight:
1. Reached 140K subscribers on Wednesday, 4 August 2021;
2. Currently (at 17 August 2021):
- Subscribers now 145K; and - Views ticked over 140 million in the last day or so.
I note that someone edited the stats a little on 14 August; not sure where the information I've given here fits in.
193.114.127.21 ( talk) 05:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Same "breathless" contributor as above: Statistics for FJ on YouTube have increased sharply, especially as the video from a couple of days ago, Who set the Terror Police on friendlyjordies? already has over 270K views, and has some striking content relevant to the FJ/Barilaro stoush.
Overall, as at the time of writing (Sun 29 Aug):
1. Subscribers: 552K; and
2. Views: 142K.
As before, recording this stuff in Talk, and leaving it to others to judge what makes encyclopaedia-worthy content.
115.64.196.63 ( talk) 06:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on the issue on Thursday evening, 26 August (video was released earlier on that day):
John Barilaro reported Friendlyjordies to police six months before producer’s arrest
Not sure where Wikipedia's evaluation of SMH as a reliable source stands.
203.217.92.235 ( talk) 00:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
(Same IP-idiot as above in this section... continuing...)
Thank you for adding the SMH reference. Also, thanks for adding the Barilaro v Shanks defamation lawsuit page.
This short comment is noting that the Langker/FPIU arrest has non-trivial overlap between this page and Barilaro's main page. The overlapping sections contain different details; perhaps some consolidation could be considered, perhaps a separate page for NSW Fixated Persons Investigation Unit.
Finally, I'll note that the portions of Hansard I quoted above regarding debate on the Federal "Online Safety Bill 2021" which appears in the "Comment" section above (Sen. Louise Pratt warning, on 18 June, of the danger of politicians abusing FPIU powers), now seems more pertinent in the light of the recent revelation of the just-over-six-month window (2 December 2020-4 June 2021) of Barilaro's contact with NSW FPIU.
60.240.215.131 ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Gah... "IP Idiot" here again, sigh.
I don't have much social media presence (no FB, Twitter etc.), so I tend to find content to put on this Talk page via reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies.
Apparently two tweets from FJ are hot news today:
1. Video of police at a NSW Parliamentary (budget estimates) videoconference hearing (24 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGlUhmIpfKI
2. Sydney Morning Herald article, perhaps working from the above-mentioned videoconference recording:
Incorrect process followed when police unit arrested Friendlyjordies producer, hearing told
In my opinion, there's some imprecision between the Shanks/Langker/friendlyjordies entities' boundaries, as viewed from different perspectives. Same could be said about division of overall police entities into various sections.
It's possible that the latest releases may argue for or against having a separate FPIU page... again, I'm not an Encyclopaedia guru, so I don't know.
60.240.215.131 ( talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this image I wonder about copyright status. Yes, it links back to a Flickr page and has the appropriate license there but Flickr allows anybody to upload anything and make whatever claims they wish. The image is a still from a film Guarding the Galilee which appears to be copyright. This image is not fair use for purpose of review or comment, so what is the copyright status, precisely? -- Pete ( talk) 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Shd we mention this??? Jack Upland ( talk) 03:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This seems like a very important thing to have here. It happened two months ago and was a major thing in the news. I do not have much experience writing wikipedia articles yet, so I am mentioning it here so someone can flesh out a section on it. ArchangelGabriel0723 ( talk) 02:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the subscribers part, Jordan has 1.07 Million not 1.05 Million Source: https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyjordies POLISHReistance ( talk) 10:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC) In the subscribers part, Jordan has 1.07 Million not 1.05 Million Source: https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyjordies
"Shanks subsequently filmed a video inside an Airbnb rental property owned by Barilaro" Shanks rented the property through Stayz. The cited article mentions the property's Airbnb price & the video's critics have assumed it was rented through Airbnb, but the cleaning bill shown in the video is from the Stayz app. 65.50.165.31 ( talk) 20:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Jordan has a name, guys. Also, his self-help channel is smaller (~100K subs) but this is an important part of his public image. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F036:F96B:4C0:5859 ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Friendlyjordies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I believe there are issues with the impartiality of the 'YouTube career' section of this article. Do tenuous, retaliatory accusations from a single individual (J Barilaro) warrant multiple mentions? "....Barilaro later described as having "racist undertones"." "....John Barilaro describing the comments as "desperate". Another racism accusation present in the article is from an anonymous source.
Jordan Shanks is an increasingly prominent independent journalist in a country with a powerful media monopoly. Uncritical repetition of opinions/criticism about Jordan Shanks that originate via hegemonic corporate media raise issues of neutrality, scandal mongering and lack of variety in sources. The bias I perceived in this article prompted me to create my first Wikipedia account and start this discussion. Flowerconfession ( talk) 17:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed Independent Australia as a source because: A. They are not a reliable source (see discussion here) and B. They cannot be used as a BLP source in any case.
User:Melmann reverted this with some comments about Australian Press Council membership. That's as may be, but unless I see some super-radical changes at IA - like not being an opinion blog, for starters - they aren't a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.
There are a number of less-dodgy but still unsuitable sources being used in this article. I'll accept reviews of shows from sources that do is as their business, but since when is Crikey a reliable source for biographical details? -- Pete ( talk) 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Fortunately, we do not need to worry about whether Independent Australia is a reliable source or not, since its inclusion here is to create original synthesis. Sources that do not discuss Shanks or Langker cannot be used to support an argument, or suggest anything, about the arrest of Langker. This article is not about the "Fixated Persons Unit" or its appropriate use. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@ Skyring: Please stop removing sources without discussing why. Saying 'Not RS for BLP' is not explaining, and unexplained content removal is vandalism. Melmann 16:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
An argument could be made that there has been a "Streisand Effect" associated with the recent JB interactions. However, hard evidence about the number of subscribers is somewhat sparse.
The Wayback Machine has one snapshot of FriendlyJordies, dated July 14 2020:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200714075544//info/en/?search=Friendlyjordies
The InfoBox associated with that snapshot states that FJ has:
Subscribers <433,000 (14/07/20)
Apparently, the InfoBox has been updated as of 1 June 2021, and shows the YouTube information as:
Subscribers 501,000 (June 2021) [1]
With Citation [1] being: "About FriendlyJordies": https://www.youtube.com/user/friendlyjordies/about
My main idea is that the subscriber count crossing the half-a-million threshold is worthy of some text in the article. I believe that some of the MSM articles from earlier this year/late last year noted that he had something above 400,000 subscribers, but my poor memory suggests 430,000-470,000.
If there has been a sharp increase recently, this may be worth noting.
Replying to myself re YouTube numbers: As at Saturday, 19 Jun 2021, YouTube lists 514k followers. Averaging 13k increase over 19 days, this is 680 additional followers per day. If 18 days, average is about 720 per day. Main point is that FJ is creating significant interest, which is turning into a measurable "followers" metric.
Thanks for putting "501k" in the Summary paragraph. Perhaps just say "over half a million" followers, since the change above is non-trivial. Perhaps review the numbers and the summary at the start of July: 720 per day, times 30 days in June, gives over 20k added in June alone.
193.115.124.80 ( talk) 03:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
115.64.197.209 ( talk) 02:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Further update: The Federal Parliament "Online Safety Bill 2021", which has been moving along for roughly two years, is now suddenly being rushed through Second Reading in the Senate by the Government.
During a Debate in the Senate about the Bill, Sen. Louise Pratt explicitly included a reference [1] that this bill could enable, at a Federal level, powers such as the "Fixated Persons Unit" powers in existence in Queensland and NSW:
[...] Also consider the case of John Barilaro, the New South Wales Deputy Premier, who is reported to have pursued YouTube comedian Friendlyjeordies with charges of stalking and intimidation. According to reports, detectives from New South Wales police fixated persons unit, acting on a complaint by Barilaro, arrested Kristo Langker at his family home in Dulwich Hill on 4 June and charged him with two offences. He was charged with two counts of stalking and intimidating with an intent to cause fear or physical or mental harm. Here we see that, given the provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme go to related concepts of menace, harass or offend, it is simply not beyond the realm of contemplation to imagine a politician asserting that a journalist, a satirist or a comedian might fall foul of these provisions in the adult cyberabuse scheme, even with clause 233 on the implied freedom of political communication. So we believe there can and must be greater transparency for review and oversight to ensure that this scheme is working to get the balance of human rights and freedom of expression right. [...]
115.64.197.209 (
talk) 03:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Author of the "Sen. Pratt" comment here; I agree with Pete that MelMann has somewhat confused State and Federal juristictions in his comment above. Apparently (no citation, sorry), the Federal party(s) are looking to "clear the decks" -- backlog of legislation remaining to be passed -- ahead of a Federal electtion. A side-effect of passing this legislation quickly -- allowing only a few (eight) days for Debate -- is that it may provide additional mechanisms to attack online critique by people such as FJ.
However, Sen. Jess Walsh, as part of the Debate on this Second Rading in the Senate regarding this bill, has this explicit criticism of "eight days" to comprehed the bill and over 370 comments, resulting in 56 items warranting further study/debate [2]:
It has been over 2½ years since the Briggs review recommended a single up-to-date online safety act. Let's look at what has happened since the Briggs review. It was back in October 2018 that Lynelle Briggs handed down the review of the Australia's online safety laws. In May 2019, during the election, the government made its first promise to introduce a new online safety act. In July 2019, the minister stood up in question time and again promised that an online safety act was coming. In September 2019, in response to Labor's questions about online hate speech, racism and the rise of right-wing extremism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist attack, the minister stood up in this parliament and yet again promised that a new online safety act was coming. In December 2019, there was another announcement, another promise, that an online safety act was coming. In September 2020, when asked about what they were doing to curb graphic content on social media in the wake of a self-harm video on Facebook and TikTok, they stood up again and promised a new online safety act. In October 2020, this time in an op-ed in the west, there was another promise that an online safety act was on the way. Then in December 2020, just two days before Christmas, this government finally released their exposure draft, with the consultation process ending only eight business days before they tabled the bill in the parliament.
The government is asking us to believe that it took two years to draft a bill but only eight days to read and consider 376 submissions. This short time frame at the end of a long drawn-out process has undermined confidence in the government's exposure draft, and stakeholders are therefore rightly concerned that submissions have not been given proper consideration. The department confirmed that, from 376 submissions, they had identified 56 issues that warranted further consideration. From those 56 issues, only seven amendments have been made. So the government has spent years talking about this bill just to rush through the work at the last minute.
193.115.124.80 ( talk) 04:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
As per the notice at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Friendlyjordies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
It's always interesting when an IP editor gets involved in a BLP article. If you are the subject of the article, say so. We are here to help present an encyclopaedia article in the best possible format, and your help in finding sources can be gold. But this talk page isn't about the subject and general discussion. It's about the article. We can't do anything about the subject, but we can do a lot about how we report it. -- Pete ( talk) 21:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, original "IP" contributor here (my ISP doles out my on-line IP on a session-by-session basis, which is why it can vary). The "notes/hints" that led me to the sources above (including Kevin Rudd's "Why I donated to friendlyjordies’ legal defence fund" blog post) mostly came via Reddit snippets (r/Australia, to be exact).
One final facet of the "Online Safety Bill 2021" that concernes me (in its current form) is that it potentially reduces the time limit for a Contributor/Provider to remove flagged content from 48 hours to 24: Part 5, Section 65, Item 1(g)(i). I am a newbie to Wikipedia editing (which is why I've buried most of my contributions in a "talk" page). However, I feel that the items I've raised are non-trivial to the question of government/internet interaction in Australia, which is why I've pointed them out. Is there a better way of managing this (e.g. start a new page for the proposed Bill?)
In closing, thank you so much for your tolerance of my input.
193.115.76.189 ( talk) 09:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
[Removed from top of "Sourcing" discussion above. New posts need to be at the bottom.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)]
Saw "citation needed" on the statement "commentators have noted Shanks' partially Southern European heritage" and produced a citation of a commentator doing exactly that. I hope that people here aren't essentially arguing "only Rupert Murdoch-owned sources count", in the discussion below, because that would violate the NPoV policy of Wikipedia. When a company owns a near-monopoly on the press, claiming opposition sources are not good sources destroys the neutral point of view. -- Melissia ( talk) 12:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
There have been two comments referring to the Murdoch media "monopoly" or "near-monopoly". Firstly, this is an exaggeration. There are many news outlets in Australia which are not owned by Murdoch: the ABC, Nine Fairfax, Channel 7, Channel 10, SBS, The Guardian, The Saturday Newspaper etc etc. Secondly, how is this relevant? As far as I can see, we currently only cite Murdoch media sources four times in this article. Why keep harping on about Murdoch?-- Jack Upland ( talk) 01:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I am all for improving the quality of sources, but removing uncontroversial content simply because the source isn't great, or removing cites and replacing them with "cite needed", is obviously a retrograde step and not improving the article. For instance, you removed the cite supporting the lead sentence "an Australian political commentator, comedian and YouTuber." Are you challenging this statement? Do you believe it violates WP:BLP? How? If not, then improving the article would be finding a better source, not removing the existing one. Similarly you removed the sentence detailing some of the people he has interviewed. Again, are you challenging this? You've removed it before saying it is of no significance, but the notability of the people he has interviewed plays a large part in establishing his notability. Removing it does not improve the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Presumably this is an article about a person - though it appears to be advertising for the channel and its income, rather than about the person per se - so why is so much of it taken up with breathless news about trivial legal matters? -- Pete ( talk) 22:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Given the ambivalence around the court proceedings, I'll put this here for discussion. Should we mention that "Shanks has raised about $1m to fund his defamation battle against New South Wales deputy premier John Barilaro and the criminal defence of his producer, Kristo Langker". The donations came from "tens of thousands of Australians". We probably shouldn't mention Shanks' cheeky comment that "We have received more than 24,000 individual donations – that’s more people who first voted John Barilaro into parliament". Some of the donations will be used to defend David McBride who is being represented by the same law firm as Shanks. [3]
References
The most notable thing about friendlyjordies is the legal action. Im sure most people who have heard of the channel know about it because of the court case. Netanyahuserious ( talk) 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
We should follow the guideline at WP:YTN regarding subscriber count, which is to use a secondary source. this one gives an indication of the money flowing in. -- Pete ( talk) 23:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
A breathless "newspaper red-hot-news" item here. appearing on the Talk page rather than the actual page, noting a couple of YouTube milestones that have been reached over the last fortnight:
1. Reached 140K subscribers on Wednesday, 4 August 2021;
2. Currently (at 17 August 2021):
- Subscribers now 145K; and - Views ticked over 140 million in the last day or so.
I note that someone edited the stats a little on 14 August; not sure where the information I've given here fits in.
193.114.127.21 ( talk) 05:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Same "breathless" contributor as above: Statistics for FJ on YouTube have increased sharply, especially as the video from a couple of days ago, Who set the Terror Police on friendlyjordies? already has over 270K views, and has some striking content relevant to the FJ/Barilaro stoush.
Overall, as at the time of writing (Sun 29 Aug):
1. Subscribers: 552K; and
2. Views: 142K.
As before, recording this stuff in Talk, and leaving it to others to judge what makes encyclopaedia-worthy content.
115.64.196.63 ( talk) 06:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The Sydney Morning Herald reported on the issue on Thursday evening, 26 August (video was released earlier on that day):
John Barilaro reported Friendlyjordies to police six months before producer’s arrest
Not sure where Wikipedia's evaluation of SMH as a reliable source stands.
203.217.92.235 ( talk) 00:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
(Same IP-idiot as above in this section... continuing...)
Thank you for adding the SMH reference. Also, thanks for adding the Barilaro v Shanks defamation lawsuit page.
This short comment is noting that the Langker/FPIU arrest has non-trivial overlap between this page and Barilaro's main page. The overlapping sections contain different details; perhaps some consolidation could be considered, perhaps a separate page for NSW Fixated Persons Investigation Unit.
Finally, I'll note that the portions of Hansard I quoted above regarding debate on the Federal "Online Safety Bill 2021" which appears in the "Comment" section above (Sen. Louise Pratt warning, on 18 June, of the danger of politicians abusing FPIU powers), now seems more pertinent in the light of the recent revelation of the just-over-six-month window (2 December 2020-4 June 2021) of Barilaro's contact with NSW FPIU.
60.240.215.131 ( talk) 01:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Gah... "IP Idiot" here again, sigh.
I don't have much social media presence (no FB, Twitter etc.), so I tend to find content to put on this Talk page via reddit.com/r/friendlyjordies.
Apparently two tweets from FJ are hot news today:
1. Video of police at a NSW Parliamentary (budget estimates) videoconference hearing (24 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGlUhmIpfKI
2. Sydney Morning Herald article, perhaps working from the above-mentioned videoconference recording:
Incorrect process followed when police unit arrested Friendlyjordies producer, hearing told
In my opinion, there's some imprecision between the Shanks/Langker/friendlyjordies entities' boundaries, as viewed from different perspectives. Same could be said about division of overall police entities into various sections.
It's possible that the latest releases may argue for or against having a separate FPIU page... again, I'm not an Encyclopaedia guru, so I don't know.
60.240.215.131 ( talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking at this image I wonder about copyright status. Yes, it links back to a Flickr page and has the appropriate license there but Flickr allows anybody to upload anything and make whatever claims they wish. The image is a still from a film Guarding the Galilee which appears to be copyright. This image is not fair use for purpose of review or comment, so what is the copyright status, precisely? -- Pete ( talk) 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Shd we mention this??? Jack Upland ( talk) 03:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This seems like a very important thing to have here. It happened two months ago and was a major thing in the news. I do not have much experience writing wikipedia articles yet, so I am mentioning it here so someone can flesh out a section on it. ArchangelGabriel0723 ( talk) 02:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the subscribers part, Jordan has 1.07 Million not 1.05 Million Source: https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyjordies POLISHReistance ( talk) 10:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC) In the subscribers part, Jordan has 1.07 Million not 1.05 Million Source: https://www.youtube.com/@friendlyjordies
"Shanks subsequently filmed a video inside an Airbnb rental property owned by Barilaro" Shanks rented the property through Stayz. The cited article mentions the property's Airbnb price & the video's critics have assumed it was rented through Airbnb, but the cleaning bill shown in the video is from the Stayz app. 65.50.165.31 ( talk) 20:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Jordan has a name, guys. Also, his self-help channel is smaller (~100K subs) but this is an important part of his public image. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F036:F96B:4C0:5859 ( talk) 14:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)