Talk:Stephen Conroy

WikiProject class rating

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

Surrogate child

Conroy has been in the news in 2006 and 2007 for a personal issue: he and his wife commissioned a surrogate pregnancy, which is unusual in Australia. It's not directly relevant to his political career, but he seems to have chosen to make this public and therefore it would seem relevant to his article. Citations: [1] [2]. "Stephen Conroy surrogacy" turns up a lot of archival hits on Google News. Thayvian (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added this info to the article cojoco (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He had to have it done outside Victoria where it is banned. Those laws were easy to bypass as well, wern't they? 202.161.19.30 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Supply references - Understanding youth

In relation to the text saying: "Whilst the the government (Labor party), projected an image of understanding the youth, technology and means of communicating, the filtering policy has been criticised as a waste of money and a failure to understand how these new means are utilised.".... I call that a reference be supplied or that the content be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.223.103 (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. --Michael Billington (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to reinstate. There are two separate premises in the statement. Firstly, "...projected an image of understanding youth, technology...". Evidence for this is the ALP use of Youtube, Facebook, Myspace etc during the 2007 campaign. Secondly, "..policy has been criticised". Evidence for this can be found in a number of forums participated in by Australian ISP representatives eg http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/934857.html. - CryRedMao —Preceding unsigned comment added by CryRedMao (talk • contribs) 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What a waste of space. Whirlpool forums are not WP:RS, wikipedia is not a place for WP:SOAP, and the above is WP:OR. Timeshift (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's in the news now, and Conroy has complained directly to the ISP, so it's relevant to WP cojoco (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with China

It is clear that for a political figure, the main policies of this person and the most significant criticisms of those policies are relevant to a biographic article. The link between the current Labor government and China is well established and the comparison between Conroy's censorship and China's great firewall has been noted on many news articles and by a wide range of critics. A balanced article should include all notable views on a given subject including both support and criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.220.108 (talk) 06:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I really think that these might actually be all of the notable views on the subject. The only material I have found in support of the internet filter was a transcript of an interview he gave on Seven's Sunrise breakfast program, and even the points he made here have been contradicted by others. A balanced article does not require both support and criticism where criticism is the consensus view of the media and other interested parties. cojoco (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadband rollout

While the internet filter is getting most of the Wikipedia attention, Stephen Conroy is also responsible for the Labor Government's broadband rollout. There should be something in the article about this, too. cojoco (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

so it's addedcojoco (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen's website

His website, senatorconroy.com is currently parked, a bit strange. Kestrel7e7 (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added a link to his governmental website, which does have some material on it. I wouldn't be surprised if his personal website had come under some sort of attack; this article does seem to see a lot of vandalism. cojoco (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why he has a .com and not a .com.au website? Is he bypassing Australian content laws? Why did he and his wife go to NSW for fertility treatment when it was against the laws in VIC? He likes to get around laws but expects everyone else to adhere to them. Darrenaustralia (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The senatorconroy.com website has nothing to do with him, it belongs to an American. He has no personal site as far as I can tell; his ministerial, parliamentary and party sites are all hosted in Australia and subject to Australian law. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Michael Malone (iiNet)

Timeshift9 removed the comments by Michael Malone. I've re-instated these comments, for two reasons:

1. The Michael Malone comment was specifically about Stephen Conroy, and as managing director of iiNet he is a notable person
2. Why not remove Bevan Slattery's comments, which are not actually about Stephen Conroy?

Can we discuss this here before you do this again? Thanks. cojoco (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the Slattery comments, they shouldn't be there either. A minister's wiki page is not a dumping ground for criticism from all and sundry. It has WP:BLP issues. It is obvious i'm going to get nowhere with people wanting to soapbox, I'll take other action on this. By all means state, factually, what is being changed, but the opinions of people who manage/direct/run ISPs who have vested interests have no place here. Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed both comments from the article - a biographical article is not the place to debate the pros and cons of a major social issue which goes back years. Someone's unencyclopaedic comment about the worst communications minister really isn't appropriate either - it's an interested party's personal opinion and may have been expressed to slant the debate (what about Alston, for instance?) - it's the same reason we don't include quotes from Hansard in people's articles. I have a *lot* of sympathy for the view that the Internet filtering system being proposed is bad, but the place to present pros and cons and views on it is Internet censorship in Australia. Orderinchaos 01:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. cojoco (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

The article lists him as having Australia/British nationality. This can't be as the Australian Constitution (as interpreted by the High Court) specifically excludes dual nationals from standing for federal parliament unless they have taken all reasonable steps to divest themselves of foreign citizenship. Britain is not among the nations that refuse to accept a surrender of citizenship, and British citizens are foreign nationals for this purpose (as determined by the High Court). Does anyone have any info on Senator Conroy having renounced his British citizenship? Robert Brockway (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the Senators office to ask where and when he surrendered/renounced his British citizenship. Robert Brockway (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There may be a confusion between nationality and citizenship. He was born in Britain (he still has a marked English accent), and in an ethnographic sense his nationality is British because he identifies with the British nation (not the same thing as the United Kingdom), just as Jennie George, although born in Italy and spending most of her life in Australia, is descended from Russians. I don't know if she ever claims this now, but if she did claim to have Russian nationality, that would be quite reasonable and would not have any implications for her citizenship status, which is Australian and Australian only. Likewise, there's no reason to believe that Conroy's citizenship is anything other than Australian, and Australian only. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

With no offence to anyone whose comment has been removed (several of which did make good points) - Wikipedia is not for speculation. If you wish to make a real world case, make it in the real world, please. Wikipedia is bound by several policies, three of which are: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, information must be verifiable from independent and reliable sources (i.e. we do not create new facts here) and care must be taken when editing biographies of living persons. Per the ArbCom decision at Footnoted quotes, as an administrator, I have removed the conversation and would ask Robert Brockway to take the point elsewhere. I would think if it were an issue someone would already have brought it to court - Conroy's hardly a non-controversial figure. Orderinchaos 07:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The conversation did waffle but the article currently claims he has British citizenship, which is why I started looking. I'll update based on any useful feedback I get from his office. Robert Brockway (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not claim he has British citizenship. Timeshift (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Except for the bit that says "Nationality: Australia, British", but if you ignore that then yeah. 203.206.220.108 (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You think citizenship and nationality are the same thing? Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do the research yourself: British Citizenship is automatically gained by birthright for anyone born in the UK. The fringe cases where one may be a British National and not a British Citizen (i.e. the BOTC, BOC, BNO, etc) do not apply to people who are citizens by birthright and are unusual special cases anyhow. Wikipedia knows of no situation where one may lose British Citizenship while still keeping British Nationality. In any rate, most people use the two terms interchangeably, so if Conroy has lost his Citizenship while retaining British Nationality, then the article header is confusing at best. (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2008 (GMT)

The infobox is rigid. The point is there is a difference between citizenship and nationality. Conroy has one but not the other when it comes to the UK. Timeshift (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between nationality and citizenship yes. But according to british nationality laws, if one renounces one's citizenship then one loses one's british nationality. So he can't be a british national but not a british citizen, and he can't be a british citizen since he is a member of the Australian Senate. AlexTG —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC).

The word "nationality" is used in different ways. Sometimes it's more or less synonymous with citizenship, which is controlled by the state. But sometimes it's simply a matter of self-identification, which is not. For example, I am a 5th generation Aussie, and my citizenship has been Australian, and only Australian, since I was born. That's never going to change, if I have any say about it. But my forebears back in the 19th century were Irish and Scottish (et al), so I consider myself to be a Celtic Australian, and specifically an Irish Australian. I could also claim quite reasonably to be a Scottish Australian, but I identify much more closely with my Irish ancestry, so I emphasise the Irish part and downplay the Scottish part. That's my choice. My nationality, in this sense, is Irish, because I say so. Just as someone might announce they're an Aborigine, while their sibling (from the same parents) may choose not to do so. The first person is an Aborigine, because they say so; while their sibling is not an Aborigine, because they have made no such self-identification. What the UK nationality laws say is their own affair, and they can certainly determine who is or is not a "national" of the UK - as long as we understand that term in that context is used as a synonym for "citizen", or at least someone to whom British law has some direct application. The broader use of "nationality" does not necessarily have that implication. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ui) I have to say that "citizenship" would be a lot more boring than "nationality" when applied to Australian politicians. cojoco (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatracking

There are appropriate places to describe the (lack of) merit of the rabbit-proof firewall. This isn't one of them. There's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Australia) and Internet censorship in Australia for starters. Andjam (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Internet censorship in Australia is the place for it, not the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Australia). Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Parliametary biography is back

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

A message to those repeatedly vandalising this page

You crave a free, open, truthful internet, yet you're prepared to directly contradict yourself by vandalising a webpage. Be against the policies, I am too, but vandalising a page and calling people homos as an insult does no justice. Timeshift (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if we want Wikipedia to help people know the facts so that this issue can be debated to the correct conclusion, everyone needs to act like adults. I got the page protected for a week in November by adding a note at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; maybe somebody should ask for something more permanent. cojoco (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page as suggested here. -- Chuq (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is full protection required? Timeshift (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think I did - my mistake - fixed now! -- Chuq (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about the vandalism of Conroy's image, the seemingly innocent user has pledged his guilt here. Timeshift (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RU486

These two statements appear to contradict each other:

From the ABC interview in external links:

STEPHEN CONROY: I've often had people raise my quotes from my contribution in that debate. I think often people haven't read the entire speech.

I support a legislative framework, as I said before. I don't think these are matters that should be left entirely to scientists. I think there is a role for the Parliament in determining some of these issues.

I think the point I made was that while I would prefer there to be a parliamentary framework for the RU486, I think it was, debate, if the actual issue was before Parliament I would probably vote for the distribution of the pill.

People often say, oh no Steve's a conservative Catholic, but they won't ever find on my voting record something that backs that up. I voted against the Northern Territory's euthanasia legislation. I voted for some of the cloning debate. So I voted in, I like to consider the issues on their merits and I voted what some would characterise as conservatively and some would characterise as progressively on a number of issues.

From The Age article cited for the RU486 comment:

He underlined his socially conservative credentials this year by voting against the abortion drug RU486 in a conscience vote.

Can anyone point to what his position actually is on these issues, and on what he actually voted for? Ta! cojoco (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

He voted against it in the third reading. 220.233.41.31 (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Current Issues

Two main issues where Stephen Conroy is a central figure are the national broadband network, and mandatory internet censorship. Can we get more information about these two topics on this page?

Stephen attacks people who are against the censorship by suggesting they are supporting child porn. Many view this approach as childish and not becoming of a senator. In addition, the only link included so far mentions filtering to protect children, however his proposed censorship scheme goes far beyond protecting children. It is mandatory for everyone in australia, not just for children. He has also led a trial but excluded the biggest ISPs in australia who offered to assist. He is also pushing this agenda to the protest of the overwhelming majority of australians. Surely we can get more information on that issue here, as it is the primary source of his publicity in the last year.

And with the broadband rollout there was enormous controversy over excluding our biggest telco from the bidding process, for not submitting an accurate tender.

Yes, this is a biography, and other things need to be included, but I do believe that current events that are much more than a fleeting issue should be included. I'll add some information and encourage others to edit and add to it as necessary

See article page edit summary. Removed additions. Timeshift (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

that's not fair. The guidelines for bio clearly allow for criticisms. Conroy only pops up in the press right now for two issues, one being the very controversial and unpopular view on internet censorship. IF you want to edit the content, feel free, but you cannot just remove it entirely. It is relevant to his biography. I'm going to restore it, and if you like you can edit the content if you think it breaks any bio guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.1.62 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

to be more specific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise

Conroy has been heavily criticized by the press, industry, the public, and in this case the minority view is one which supports his position on censorship. It is an important point in his biography that he has opposed such an overwhelming majority and stubbornly pressed forward with his agenda. The article before my edit merely stated that he supported the policy. But it is more than that -- he is responsible for it. And the objections and criticism received has been loud and frequent, and rather than met with debate and openness, it has been met with illogical personal attacks, illogical reasoning ( protecting children from inappropriate content means the entire population must be restricted, instead of the obvious opt-in for parents to have filtered feeds ), and moving goalposts the whole way. So this needs to be added as it is very relevant. Lets work together and find the right way to do it, rather than just edit-warring and deleting stuff we don't like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.1.62 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can just remove it entirely, and just did, again. See the edit history of the article. The additions are a WP:COATRACK. The issue receives a mention with a link to Internet censorship in Australia. The wikipedia community decided the way to go ages ago, your re-additions will simply be removed if they are re-added again. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the discussion where the "wikipedia community decited the way to go ages ago"? I don't see that discussion here, and if there was no discussion, then there needs to be one. And no, it is not a coatrack. He is holding a view that goes against the majority of the population. It is part of his biography. It is controversial. And it needs to be mentioned here. If you think it goes into too much detail that's fine, feel free to engage me in correcting it. I refer you to what is not a coatrack: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COATRACK#What_is_not_a_coatrack

What is not a coatrack

An article about an astronaut might mostly focus on his moon landing. A moon trip that took only a tiny fraction of the astronaut's life takes up most of the article. But that does not make it a coatrack article. The event was a significant moment in the subject's life, and his main claim to notability

This is not giving undue weight to an insignificant part of his life. I would think undue weight in this article is the rather large quote of conroy himself claiming he he not that conservative, but we can get to that later. This is a major part of his biography and is clearly the overwhelming part of it. It needs to be expanded, and I'm happy for you to be involved in crafting that. But otherwise can you explain what gives you the right to not engage at all but to delete all content you don't like?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.1.62 (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit ambivalent about all of this. I'd really suggest that M. IP Address gets themselves a username, as it's a bit hard to keep track of a discussion with a user that will be something else in the near future. However, I do agree with IPAdress that the mandatory internet filter is the most notable thing about SC for most Australians, and the NBN and the filter are the most notable in the media, so I think they should have more weight in the article. I added the quote from SC, and one reason that I did so is that it was one of the few quotes I encountered from him, and it did seem to disagree with the media's presentation of him as an anti-abortion Catholic, so I thought that it was only fair to give him a "right-of-reply". cojoco (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you also say that SC is "responsible" for the mandatory internet filter. I'm actually not sure if this is true or not, as the policy is straight from The Australia Institute, and is quite old. I wouldn't want to second-guess the motives of any of the players in this charade without backup from reliable sources: I'd be cynical enough to believe any number of reasons for SC to be so obstructionist and objectionable over this filter, and not all of them require him to actually want it to be implemented. cojoco (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

i've always been AN, but if it becomes a problem i'll make a user. But for now, I think it's pretty easy to follow that I'm the same M.IP  ;)

As I understand, Conroy has been claiming that the ALP was elected on a promise of internet censorship. I also understand this is incorrect -- it was not ALP policy during the election, and was added into the mix by Conroy himself towards the very end of the election. In addition, the promise was to offer filtered feeds, not to force sweeping censorship on the entire nation. I'll go dig up some references and get back to you on those points. If I can't find them then yes, he may not be solely responsible for the policy. But in using the word "responsible" I was pointing out that this issue is in his portfolio. He is "in charge". That is what I meant by responsible. --121.91.1.62 (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Back again. http://www.efa.org.au/censorship/mandatory-isp-blocking/ points out that in 2006 there was an ALP media release ( which is currently not available ) stating they would pursue filtering. The earliest detail I can find on that is in the policy is here http://www.alp.org.au/download/now/labors_plan_for_cyber_safety.pdf which has Steven Conroys name at the top as "Deputy Opposition Leader in the Senate / Shadow Minister for Communications and Information Technology". This was released on November 19, 5 days before the election. Hardly an election promise. Anyway. So at what point do we say someone isn't responsible for something? I doubt any senator has fully drafted an entire policy by themselves. But they are put into a position of power and given responsibility to drive something.

In addition, if you read the document it states: on pages 2 and 5, the policy states it will be mandatory for ISPs to offer a clean feed available to children. This has changed now, by the way, to it being mandatory for ISPs to "force" a censored feed, and "offer" an additional more restrictive feed.

There is of course a lot more, but obviously the whole internet censorship issue shouldn't be included here. There is a separate wikipage already for that. However, this is very much a dominant part of Conroy's biography, and I think it should get some weighted representation here.

I'm also cynical enough to believe any number of motivations. However all we can rely on is what a person puts his name to, what responsibilities they accept, what actions they take and what they are quoted as saying, with context. --121.91.1.62 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This WP:BIO is encyclopedic (one could argue that it contains TMI given the volleyball refs etc.) so WP:COATRACK is not at all applicable. The internet censorship discussion is absolutely relevant in so far as it discusses the senator's views on the subject and the criticism/support it received, but the details of the plan itself belong in the dedicated article. Like it or not, the senator is internationally [in]famous for this policy alone and as such it definitely deserves dedicated but fair/neutral treatment in this article. -- samj _in^out 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I never understand what "TMI" means in a place where information doesn't actually take up any space: the volleyball ref is legit, is nowhere else on WP, is not defamatory, and reflects on the man: why not include it? However, I'm still not sure what to do about the censorship debate, as SC has made it all rather personal with his child-porn accusations of his detractors. I also recently cleared up a little point about ALP policy in the article: when it was first announced, "mandatory" meant "opt-in by default", as SC stated explicitly that adults could get access to the uncensored internet. Somehow or other, that morphed into two blacklists. While the no-opt-out filter may not have been ALP policy until quite recently, it has been a policy wish from the Australia Institute, which is an ALP think-tank, so it has been under the surface for quite a long time now. cojoco (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cull internet censorship and add NBN and DTV?

I think the Internet Censorship in Australia material merits one paragraph, but it seems to be growing bit by bit. I think we should cull it back to one paragraph soon, and I don't think that comments on Wikileaks bear much relevance to SC's biography. Also, despite all the discussion, the only action has been on ICIA. I think we could do three paragraphs, one on each of ICIA, NBN and DTV? cojoco (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely though, the censorship stuff is going to define his career. Historians will certainly look back at him that way. Bit like Nixon and watergate I suppose. 219.90.156.104 (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the current material doesn't have all that much to do with SC. There's not very much to link SC with his party's policies: he doesn't even seem like a proper bible-basher. Will history judge SC, or will they judge the Labor Party? Do any reliable sources even care about this question? cojoco (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've culled a lot of the ACMA material which doesn't have much to do with SC: it's well covered in ACMA and Internet censorship in Australia - cojoco (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The youtube censorship request reported on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8513073.stm

Permanent Semi-protection requested

I've requested permanent semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection cojoco (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's protected for three months. cojoco (talk) 02:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for it again, as it's been vandalized four times since coming off protection. cojoco (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

AFACT VS IINET

someone will want to add a section here regarding his position on this, and the emerging reports that he'll reform copyright so that ISPs will be held accountable for copyright actions on their network. - 15.195.201.87 (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the story: Film industry loses iiNet download case. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Mike Kaiser Corruption Scandal

Could someone please add something about Senator Conroy giving his mate Kaiser (who was kicked out of parliament for corruption) a $450,000 a year job at NBN (which is employed in a $4.7 billion goverment contract).

References: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-to-get-a-450000-job-no-ads-required--just-a-nice-word-from-the-minister-20100209-no66.html

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/Kaiser-s-appointment-corrupt-opposition/0,130061791,339300913,00.htm?omnRef=http://www.google.com.au/search?q=stephen%20conroy%20kaiser%20corruption&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://zgeek.com/content.php/898-Conroy-accused-of-corruption

And a little qoute from the opposition's legal affairs spokesman George Brandis

"I'm accusing him (Senator Conroy) of interfering in the process to secure this job for one of his mates," he told Sky News today.

"The manner in which this was done is plainly, plainly a corrupted process."

Frontier (I'm on wikibooks)

Controversy Section

Due to the increasing controversy surrounding Stephen Conroy, I suggest we add a "Controversy" section. Recently Conroy has been involved in a scandal involving Kerry Stokes, owner of Channel 7, and a separate issue involving using his political capital to get his friend, Mike Kaiser, employed in a senior role at the company set up to create the Government's National Broadband Network (NBN).

These controversies need to be added to this page to keep it current and accurate.

References: http://www.news.com.au/national/minister-in-secret-snow-dinner-with-mogul/story-e6frfkw9-1225830083475

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/09/2813886.htm?section=justin

==

Additional reports have emerged that Conroy is under fire over. This Controversy section needs to be added. I'm unable to do so myself as the article is locked. Can we agree upon a section and add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitcloud1 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Leave your text here. If it seems good, someone will add it. cojoco (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

==

I agree, this guy was fairly contraversial from being a conservative voting catholic in a "progressive" party, his most memeworthy moment in politics was how for at least three years he was lambasted for his comments about Spam portals - it was scandalous because he was in charge of ACMA but had no undertanding of the internet. Additionally he was found to have accepted a gift in the form of free accommodation at the alpine lodge of jailed ALP minister Eddie Obeid, Ref: Obeid https://www.9news.com.au/national/conroy-defends-using-obeid-ski-lodge/5fb55fd2-d723-437c-bf1e-adc42932de70 Spam Portals https://www.theregister.com/2010/06/09/conroy_gibber/ https://delimiter.com.au/2010/06/08/oh-dear-conroys-spams-or-scams-in-the-portal/ https://www.techdirt.com/2010/06/23/help-has-arrived-for-australians-worried-about-spams-scams-coming-through-the-portal/ 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

ACMA blacklist

I removed the link to the ACMA blacklist. WP:EL normally forbids links to porn or shock sites, and would definitely forbid links to illegal material under State of Florida law. The existence of the list is already mentioned in the article, but the full list should not be linked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the list itself is illegal under Florida law. Just saying... Gregory.currie (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I re added the link to the ACMA blacklist. WP:EL normally forbids links to porn or shock sites, and would definitely forbid links to illegal material under State of Florida law and this link is not illegal in any way under current Australian law. The existence of the list is already mentioned in the article, and the the full list should also be linked as a reference. 203.48.242.81 (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Needs Balance

If anyone can find something positive to say about Conroy please either add it here or in the article. We need NPOV, but I'm really struggling. Gregory.currie (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything that is reliably sourced can go in the article, but at the moment it has become top heavy with criticism. It is disappointing that this edit was restored, because it makes the "Politics" section look like a coatrack against Conroy. Is this really necessary?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't like to see this kind of stuff here. It doesn't really reflect on his accomplishments or on his abilities as a person, it just seems like sneering. We should really only have a bare minimum of stuff here about his policies; the details of his portfolio should go in the NBN, Freeview, Internet censorship in Australia, and ACMA articles. The issues are complicated enough without every little petty detail about who said every little thing. cojoco (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

It's now perfectly balanced. Gregory.currie (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE weight on criticism

It seems to me that this article puts far, far too much weight on the internet censorship policy he spruiked as minister. I suspect this reflects the general attitude of active Wikipedia editors, in the same way as our coverage of (e.g.) Linux distributions is outstanding, we are also generally in favour of "freedom of speech", whatever that means. Obviously the policy should be mentioned, since it's a major source of contention in his portfolio, but it seems odd that we dedicate half the article to this policy and one sentence to the NBN, which most people would suggest is of greater significance.

In the same fashion, it worries me greatly that practically every sentence in the article is "Conroy was criticised by XYZ for ABC". This article is a biography, not a collection of criticisms. It should incorporate such criticism alongside summaries of policy and other relevant information.

I'll probably make the changes myself in the next couple of days, but my inclination is to delete everything past the second paragraph in the internet censorship section, but folding the "internet villain of the year" part into the prose somewhere else. I'll also try to reshape the politics section in general into a couple of different sections (vaguely, opposition and government periods) and bring in some detail rather than a laundry list of everything the man's ever done wrong.

I would have just gone ahead and made the changes myself in the spirit of BRD, but I seem to be tangentially involved in a few BLP disputes at the moment (interestingly being variously accused of being both a Labor and Liberal hack!) and really don't want an edit war. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A look at the edit history shows that Stephen Conroy is prone to producing soapboxing, with some of the edits WP:REVDELETED after going over the top. However, the article does not seem to be an attack piece. Is there any particular part that you thought failed WP:UNDUE?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly not an attack piece, but to my mind most of the article fails WP:UNDUE as it's mostly just a list of things he did wrong or (even worse) things someone in the media criticised him for. If you compare the article to some of our other articles on Australian politicians (say, for example, Nick Minchin), they still contain the criticisms but they are balanced against neutral statements of things he did. This article doesn't have that. Let met quote from an uninterrupted sequence of sentences:

• "Conroy ... was criticised in early 2006 by ..."
• "Crean attacked Conroy repeatedly"
• "Conroy faced criticism"
• (two reasonable sentences)
• "he admitted using his influence ... to have ... take the position" (this is editorialising over and above what the source says - that he "recommended")
• "he was reported to spend some time ... with Kerry Stokes weeks before cutting fees" (weaseling)
• "It is notable that the fee cut amounted to a quarter of a billion dollars" (yes it is, but "it is notable that" is editorialising)
• "Conroy suggests that ..., however ..." (weaseling/editorialising (MOS:OPED)
• (one decent paragraph about his portfolio)
• "Conroy has faced severe criticism" (this one's OK in context, it's what follows that's a problem)
• (good description of the policy in one sentence)
• (good paragraph about the Wikileaked blacklist)
• "Stephen Conroy had not faced an interview about the issue for at least six months ... where he attempted to defend the policy in front of critics and supporters of the policy" (editorialising and weaseling again)
• (Internet villain of the year, fine in context)
• "raising concerns about ... further potential for suppression of political speech after the proposed mandatory Internet filter is legislated" (this is irrelevant to the biography unless he said something about those concerns)
• "In May 2010, Conroy was accused of deliberately misrepresenting ..."
• "Senator Conroy is a Catholic, and is said to be socially conservative." (by who?)
• "he has claimed not to have taken a conservative position on all issues" (WP:SAY)

I think if you perform a similar test on other Australian politician articles you will find them to be far more balanced, rather than this example where practically every sentence is an attack or editorial on his credibility. I'm not saying every sentence I just listed should be deleted, I'm just showing that the thrust of the article as a whole places undue weight on critics. For instance, if you read this article you'd come to the conclusion he accomplished nothing at all from 1996 to 2009 except being criticised by Simon Crean (which admittedly is quite an achievement). I want to rewrite chunks of the article to try to present a neutral point of view that includes both praise (hard to find on the internet, I know) and criticism, with a level reporting of his actual actions rather than editorialising about his motives in every decision he made. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are quite a lot of "Conroy faced criticism over ..." statements in the article Most of these seem to be reliably sourced, and reflect what has been said in the media. Conroy has faced worse in the blogs, eg here (NSFW). Some people seem to be able to attract controversy like a magnet attracts iron filings, and Stephen Conroy is one of them. By all means prune some of the criticism/controversy if you think it is non-notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Stalinist?

Hello, as to an edit of January 3: I do not think the epithet Stalinist should be pinned on a politician, since the term is too ambiguous and laden. Can anyone check this? I will not resort to a revert war here. Thanks, Super48paul (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been reverted again, because it is unconstructive and not WP:NPOV. It is also the work of a single IP editor who keeps adding it. I have also requested pending changes for the page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this fixed!Super48paul (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Politics Section

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stephen Conroy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521213707/http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/national_broadband_network to http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_business/funding_programs__and__support/national_broadband_network
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100603041132/http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/39475-iinet-says-sen-conroy-lied to http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/government-tech-policy/39475-iinet-says-sen-conroy-lied
• Added archive https://archive.is/20060820183618/http://www.volleyballvictoria.com.au/about.php to http://www.volleyballvictoria.com.au/about.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Order of Australia

Where is the evidence Conroy has been appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia?