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 sourcedmust 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Scott Ludlam is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles
Scott Ludnam elected
This article keeps changing Ludnam's senate elect status. I previously wrote "he had been elected". Someone changed that to "provisionally elected". Today, someone else changed it to "predicted to be elected". Even though the last few overseas postal votes are yet to come in, there is no chance of Ludnam losing. His numbers are safe. Every major news organisation in Australia says he was elected. Example,
Murdoch pressand
Fairfax This article should join the news media and say he was elected.--Lester 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I changed it back... let's hope Rebecca, and everyone else, will finally leave it alone. Enough time has passed, I'd say... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.125.250.105 (
talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see how anyone can say he's been elected already..... i haven't finished counting the votes yet. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.161.89.170 (
talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Infobox image
I am a little surprised that the image is so important. This sentence caught my eye: "He left New Zealand with his family aged three, and settled in Australia at eight years old...." That's 5 years. It may not be so interesting where they were, but it's a hole in the info chain.
2001:8003:A921:6300:FD8A:5A6A:B198:631B (
talk) 06:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Proposed infobox imageProposal 2
I think the image with the highest EV should be used in the infobox, that best depicts the subject, and is consistent with
WP:NPOV. From the many alternatives at
Commons I think the best is
this as it is of high quality, and shows the subject in a characteristic pose related to his notability (i.e. talking). The current
image which
one editor insist keeping is lower quality, has less EV and is less neutral. --
ELEKHHT 00:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
We should be using the original, official, free image. It's also the only portrait photo and therefore most suitable for the infobox image. I've added the other images in chronological order (2009 and 2011) to the article body.
Timeshift (
talk) 00:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Ideally, of course, we would use the official Senate portrait, but that option being unavailable I have to go with the one that is actually a portrait. I don't understand the argument about neutrality - we should not be showing people with blue skies behind them?
Frickeg (
talk) 00:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Blue sky is just an aesthetic issue (IMO kitsch). NPOV applies to all content not just text, and the same way we do not write an article based on primary sources because of potential bias we shouldn't be using "official" images either when better alternatives are available. Using promotional staged images is not the best choice for an encyclopaedic article. I rather think that candid journalistic photo that captures the subject in a way that hints to his/her profession is better suited for an encyclopaedia. I also don't see the point of adding multiple portraits if there is no additional EV per
WP:IG. --
ELEKHHT 01:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Only one can be considered a portrait photo - the original official free photo. And there's nothing wrong with multiple article-body photos, many politician articles have them. No person is adequately represented by just one photo. The point of WP:IG is that the article isn't a photo repository - nobody's adding the dozen or so photos in the commons link you gave above.
Timeshift (
talk) 01:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I can't follow that logic. A "
portrait" doesn't has have(correction) to be "official", nor perfectly frontal. Also all 15 photos on Commons are free, so I don't see why you keep repeating that as if would only apply to the "official" photo which you seem to prefer against all arguments (quality, neutrality, EV). --
ELEKHHT 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't "have" to be, but is preferable. I keep saying original, official, free photo because other parties don't make free their official photos. I never said 'free' in and of itself. Official photos are preferable especially when they're free. And if you're saying either of the other two photos are portraits, I suggest you understand what portraits are :)
Timeshift (
talk) 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
There was an edit conflict. I meant: Why is official preferable to neutral? Why is portrait preferable to higher EV? --
ELEKHHT 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The quality of the "official" one isn't that bad. And it seems totally illogical to go for "candid" photos over staged ones for the main portrait, not to mention completely against general practice. Are you saying that it's POV to use official portraits on pages like
Barack Obama,
Louis XIV, or
Joseph Stalin?
Frickeg (
talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
You're jumping the gun a lot, not to mention goalpost shifting. Wikipedia prefers official free portrait photos over candid non-portrait photos for the infobox. These are facts. Go to some larger forum and get a change in consensus. Until then let's leave Ludlam be.
Timeshift (
talk) 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I am not shifting goalpost, I put forward all my arguments in the first paragraph, but you seem to have missed most of them. And please don't bully me and be aware of
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Also can you please point me to the talk where a consensus has been reached that "Wikipedia prefers official free portrait photos" as you claim? --
ELEKHHT 05:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Quite. If you're not happy with the consensus, OK, that's fine, but the place to discuss a change is not the page of a single Australian senator.
Frickeg (
talk) 01:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Something else i've noticed while we're on the subject of "quality"... the official free photo is very sharp without any blur despite it being of lower resolution. The one with the black background, look at the original resolution size - look at "Sony" on the microphone. Looks like a night out on the piss. Are we done yet? :)
Timeshift (
talk) 02:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The "official" portrait is never always the best image, the one currently used looks ridiculously "photoshooped" and outdated even though its only 4 years old, looks to be taken in the early 2000, the one with the black background isn't good enough to be used in the MAIN infobox, firstly the person is looking away and 1/3 of the image is of a table corner...--
Stemoc (
talk) 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Ah, the advocate of the third image is here. All official images are photostopped. And outdated? Even if it were true it's irrelevant. Newer is not better.
Timeshift (
talk) 02:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
My Lord, this man is a LIAR!...sorry...yeah, my "job" (unpaid and ridiculously time consuming) on wikimedia is to get the best possible images for celebs/politicians/low-lives etc....I generally wouldn't care what image was used but it should be an image which is clear and preferably recent...if you look at the metadata for your image Timeshift, it has actually "been" photoshopped" in 2008, you uploaded it in 2010 so the image isn't just under 5 years old, but just under 6 years old..--
Stemoc (
talk) 02:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
So, what image are you suggesting?
Frickeg (
talk) 02:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I have no opinion (neutral), but if you do a nice crop of the "blackground" image, its actually good enough.. ..--
Stemoc (
talk) 02:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I didn't lie about anything. You advocated the
third image. Proposal two on the right is still of bad quality. Zoom to original size and try to read 'Sony' - it's like double vision. Official free sharp image thanks.
Timeshift (
talk) 03:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Indeed, but since no one bothers for the "best" image, i'm giving you option from the worst 2 ...and no one would care about the brand of microphone he is using..--
Stemoc (
talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"Best" is subjective. Official free image for infobox per wikipedia convention is not subjective. And I don't care what brand the microphone is, i'm pointing out the inferior image quality. Often, larger resolution means poorer quality.
Timeshift (
talk) 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The microphone is blurred because it is moving, which is not a problem as is not the main subject of the image. However the speaker's face is clear and of higher resolution than the image with the distracting sky. --
ELEKHHT 05:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not going around in circles. Get consensus. Ta-ta for now.
Timeshift (
talk) 06:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, what I see is that there is no consensus for the official image either. In the absence of any guideline or policy on this issue, consensus needs to be established here. The above claims that the widespread use of official images in infoboxes would suggest a de facto consensus is not a valid argument, as can simply be the result of
systemic bias. --
ELEKHHT 04:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Per talkpage? LOL! Guess what ELEKHH. Ain't happening.
Timeshift (
talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh and I hoped that when you just said "whatever" it meant you finally understood the arguments... Well, than keep guarding the "whatever" status quo and perhaps you can let us know when you stopped
owning this page. Cheers. -
ELEKHHT 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reiterating the fact that I prefer the "official" image as well, and am far from convinced by the arguments against it, especially those concerning NPOV.
Frickeg (
talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Elekhh, cease the wikilawyering (7 now and mostly if not all irrelevant). I'll keep guarding the status quo as you didn't get consensus then decided to dummy spit with the change after a few days of you not being able to get any.
Timeshift (
talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
All links provided had the intention to hint to the bigger picture, but I'm not surprised you find them "mostly [...] irrelevant". No doubt this bullying tone and micro-conservative stance are effective. If only you could imagine of being constructive, assume that other editors argue in good faith, and might have an insight you don't have... Your similarly conservative stance at
Plibersek, has been noted too. --
ELEKHHT 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Can you hear the herds of support rumbling toward you? Or is that just tumbleweeds? You still have no support for your image yet you appear to still insist on a change away from the status quo. I don't suffer fools gladly. And thanks for the other link - yet another where i'm right and you're wrong!
Timeshift (
talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
You mean the "herds" are on your side? Anyway, you're right. --
ELEKHHT 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't need a herd to maintain the status quo. Thanks for saying i'm correct though, it means a lot.
Timeshift (
talk) 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
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 sourcedmust 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Scott Ludlam is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New Zealand and
New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Green Politics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Green PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject Green PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Green PoliticsGreen Politics articles
Scott Ludnam elected
This article keeps changing Ludnam's senate elect status. I previously wrote "he had been elected". Someone changed that to "provisionally elected". Today, someone else changed it to "predicted to be elected". Even though the last few overseas postal votes are yet to come in, there is no chance of Ludnam losing. His numbers are safe. Every major news organisation in Australia says he was elected. Example,
Murdoch pressand
Fairfax This article should join the news media and say he was elected.--Lester 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)reply
I changed it back... let's hope Rebecca, and everyone else, will finally leave it alone. Enough time has passed, I'd say... —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.125.250.105 (
talk) 22:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't see how anyone can say he's been elected already..... i haven't finished counting the votes yet. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
203.161.89.170 (
talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Infobox image
I am a little surprised that the image is so important. This sentence caught my eye: "He left New Zealand with his family aged three, and settled in Australia at eight years old...." That's 5 years. It may not be so interesting where they were, but it's a hole in the info chain.
2001:8003:A921:6300:FD8A:5A6A:B198:631B (
talk) 06:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Proposed infobox imageProposal 2
I think the image with the highest EV should be used in the infobox, that best depicts the subject, and is consistent with
WP:NPOV. From the many alternatives at
Commons I think the best is
this as it is of high quality, and shows the subject in a characteristic pose related to his notability (i.e. talking). The current
image which
one editor insist keeping is lower quality, has less EV and is less neutral. --
ELEKHHT 00:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
We should be using the original, official, free image. It's also the only portrait photo and therefore most suitable for the infobox image. I've added the other images in chronological order (2009 and 2011) to the article body.
Timeshift (
talk) 00:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Ideally, of course, we would use the official Senate portrait, but that option being unavailable I have to go with the one that is actually a portrait. I don't understand the argument about neutrality - we should not be showing people with blue skies behind them?
Frickeg (
talk) 00:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Blue sky is just an aesthetic issue (IMO kitsch). NPOV applies to all content not just text, and the same way we do not write an article based on primary sources because of potential bias we shouldn't be using "official" images either when better alternatives are available. Using promotional staged images is not the best choice for an encyclopaedic article. I rather think that candid journalistic photo that captures the subject in a way that hints to his/her profession is better suited for an encyclopaedia. I also don't see the point of adding multiple portraits if there is no additional EV per
WP:IG. --
ELEKHHT 01:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Only one can be considered a portrait photo - the original official free photo. And there's nothing wrong with multiple article-body photos, many politician articles have them. No person is adequately represented by just one photo. The point of WP:IG is that the article isn't a photo repository - nobody's adding the dozen or so photos in the commons link you gave above.
Timeshift (
talk) 01:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I can't follow that logic. A "
portrait" doesn't has have(correction) to be "official", nor perfectly frontal. Also all 15 photos on Commons are free, so I don't see why you keep repeating that as if would only apply to the "official" photo which you seem to prefer against all arguments (quality, neutrality, EV). --
ELEKHHT 01:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
No, it doesn't "have" to be, but is preferable. I keep saying original, official, free photo because other parties don't make free their official photos. I never said 'free' in and of itself. Official photos are preferable especially when they're free. And if you're saying either of the other two photos are portraits, I suggest you understand what portraits are :)
Timeshift (
talk) 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
There was an edit conflict. I meant: Why is official preferable to neutral? Why is portrait preferable to higher EV? --
ELEKHHT 01:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The quality of the "official" one isn't that bad. And it seems totally illogical to go for "candid" photos over staged ones for the main portrait, not to mention completely against general practice. Are you saying that it's POV to use official portraits on pages like
Barack Obama,
Louis XIV, or
Joseph Stalin?
Frickeg (
talk) 01:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
You're jumping the gun a lot, not to mention goalpost shifting. Wikipedia prefers official free portrait photos over candid non-portrait photos for the infobox. These are facts. Go to some larger forum and get a change in consensus. Until then let's leave Ludlam be.
Timeshift (
talk) 01:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I am not shifting goalpost, I put forward all my arguments in the first paragraph, but you seem to have missed most of them. And please don't bully me and be aware of
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Also can you please point me to the talk where a consensus has been reached that "Wikipedia prefers official free portrait photos" as you claim? --
ELEKHHT 05:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Quite. If you're not happy with the consensus, OK, that's fine, but the place to discuss a change is not the page of a single Australian senator.
Frickeg (
talk) 01:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Something else i've noticed while we're on the subject of "quality"... the official free photo is very sharp without any blur despite it being of lower resolution. The one with the black background, look at the original resolution size - look at "Sony" on the microphone. Looks like a night out on the piss. Are we done yet? :)
Timeshift (
talk) 02:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The "official" portrait is never always the best image, the one currently used looks ridiculously "photoshooped" and outdated even though its only 4 years old, looks to be taken in the early 2000, the one with the black background isn't good enough to be used in the MAIN infobox, firstly the person is looking away and 1/3 of the image is of a table corner...--
Stemoc (
talk) 02:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Ah, the advocate of the third image is here. All official images are photostopped. And outdated? Even if it were true it's irrelevant. Newer is not better.
Timeshift (
talk) 02:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
My Lord, this man is a LIAR!...sorry...yeah, my "job" (unpaid and ridiculously time consuming) on wikimedia is to get the best possible images for celebs/politicians/low-lives etc....I generally wouldn't care what image was used but it should be an image which is clear and preferably recent...if you look at the metadata for your image Timeshift, it has actually "been" photoshopped" in 2008, you uploaded it in 2010 so the image isn't just under 5 years old, but just under 6 years old..--
Stemoc (
talk) 02:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
So, what image are you suggesting?
Frickeg (
talk) 02:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I have no opinion (neutral), but if you do a nice crop of the "blackground" image, its actually good enough.. ..--
Stemoc (
talk) 02:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I didn't lie about anything. You advocated the
third image. Proposal two on the right is still of bad quality. Zoom to original size and try to read 'Sony' - it's like double vision. Official free sharp image thanks.
Timeshift (
talk) 03:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Indeed, but since no one bothers for the "best" image, i'm giving you option from the worst 2 ...and no one would care about the brand of microphone he is using..--
Stemoc (
talk) 03:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"Best" is subjective. Official free image for infobox per wikipedia convention is not subjective. And I don't care what brand the microphone is, i'm pointing out the inferior image quality. Often, larger resolution means poorer quality.
Timeshift (
talk) 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The microphone is blurred because it is moving, which is not a problem as is not the main subject of the image. However the speaker's face is clear and of higher resolution than the image with the distracting sky. --
ELEKHHT 05:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm not going around in circles. Get consensus. Ta-ta for now.
Timeshift (
talk) 06:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Well, what I see is that there is no consensus for the official image either. In the absence of any guideline or policy on this issue, consensus needs to be established here. The above claims that the widespread use of official images in infoboxes would suggest a de facto consensus is not a valid argument, as can simply be the result of
systemic bias. --
ELEKHHT 04:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Per talkpage? LOL! Guess what ELEKHH. Ain't happening.
Timeshift (
talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oh and I hoped that when you just said "whatever" it meant you finally understood the arguments... Well, than keep guarding the "whatever" status quo and perhaps you can let us know when you stopped
owning this page. Cheers. -
ELEKHHT 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Reiterating the fact that I prefer the "official" image as well, and am far from convinced by the arguments against it, especially those concerning NPOV.
Frickeg (
talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Elekhh, cease the wikilawyering (7 now and mostly if not all irrelevant). I'll keep guarding the status quo as you didn't get consensus then decided to dummy spit with the change after a few days of you not being able to get any.
Timeshift (
talk) 00:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
All links provided had the intention to hint to the bigger picture, but I'm not surprised you find them "mostly [...] irrelevant". No doubt this bullying tone and micro-conservative stance are effective. If only you could imagine of being constructive, assume that other editors argue in good faith, and might have an insight you don't have... Your similarly conservative stance at
Plibersek, has been noted too. --
ELEKHHT 13:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Can you hear the herds of support rumbling toward you? Or is that just tumbleweeds? You still have no support for your image yet you appear to still insist on a change away from the status quo. I don't suffer fools gladly. And thanks for the other link - yet another where i'm right and you're wrong!
Timeshift (
talk) 13:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
You mean the "herds" are on your side? Anyway, you're right. --
ELEKHHT 14:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't need a herd to maintain the status quo. Thanks for saying i'm correct though, it means a lot.
Timeshift (
talk) 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply