Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)

Latest comment: 1 day ago by PARAKANYAA in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page

Bias in the opening sentence.

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago25 comments14 people in discussion

Look at any prominent left wing activist or black victim of police violence who both have criminal convictions and a wikipedia article, and tell me if any of them call the person a criminal like this in the opening sentence, despite many of them having far longer and more serious lists of convictions.

Even Martha stewart lists a number of positive things about her and her life, before mentioning her conviction on insider trading in the second paragraph, as it's one of the most notable things she's known for.

Putting "convicted criminal" in the opening sentence smacks of blatant partisan bias, attempting to paint the subject in as negative a light as possible from the opening sentence. It would seem more appropriate to list this in another section detailing why this person is notable for various public clashes with authority connected to his ideology.

Imagine if we opened the George Floyd article by calling him a convicted criminal, something that factors prominently in his notariety. What would the reaction be?

NPOV. JStressman (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think the opening sentence is a fair assessment of why Sewell has become notable enough for his own page.
Sewell's criminality, in particular the Grampians armed robbery and security guard assault brought him to the forefront of the Australian, and in particular Victorian public.
Martha Stewart was in public life for 40 years before her conviction and had her own television program. George Flyod was unknown until his murder. Tom Sewell was unknown in the eyes of the Australian public until the Grampians armed robbery.
I would also argue his self professed Neo Nazism is a far more defamatory statement towards his character than being called a convicted criminal. GrandmaPoss (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
No armed robbery was committed at the Grampians, this is blatantly false information, an alleged armed robbery occurred at the Cathedral Range, but that has not even been proven at court yet.
He mainly became well known due to the Grampians camping trip where absolutely zero violent crime took place, and the 60 minutes documentary by Nick McKenzie on his organization, not any criminal actions.
Tom Sewell has been running/involved neo-Nazi groups for the better part of a decade and that is what he is most well known for, not any criminality as you are suggesting. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The problem is most of the Neo Nazi groups run by Sewell over the last decade are not well known as evidence by their omission in this very article. The Cathedral ranges allegations and the assault of the Channel 9 Security guard propelled him into the spotlight, not anything he actually did as an activist.
Regardless, the original objection was that 'convicted criminal' was bias as it was attempting to paint him in a negative light - being a Neo Nazi is far more damning of his character than being a convicted criminal. GrandmaPoss (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The cathedral ranges incident was certainly not the cause of his propulsion into the limelight, rather being the Grampians incident, the 60 minutes infiltration and documentary and more recently protesting, not any alleged criminal activity. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The 60 minutes story wasn't just on Sewell, we need to remember. It was on a broad range of characters. Yes 60 minutes did bring him some level of notoriety, however the charges he is currently facing for the events at The Cathedral ranges and his conviction for the assault of security guard at Channel 9 and the events surrounding those events have certainly drawn even greater amounts of attention again. He is a convicted criminal and it is appropriate to refer to him as such given 2 out of 4 subsections under the activities section deal either with confirmed criminal activities or allegations of criminal activities. Confirmed criminal activities and allegations of criminal activities make up a substantial proportion of this article. AlanStalk 06:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The 60 minutes story was primarily on Sewell (given it was a group that he leads and plays a foundational role in) and bought him great amounts of public attention, I would say his assault conviction brought him a decent amount of attention but not to the degree of the 60 minutes documentary, or the Grampians incident, most people who know who he is know him for either that or the recent protests in the streets of Melbourne, I think having his assault conviction in the third paragraph as it currently is is appropriate. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fully 2 out of 4 sub-sections of the Activities sections is made up of confirmed criminal behaviour or confirmed criminal behaviour. His court appearances and convictions are notable in their own right especially given how they Channel 9 one came about. AlanStalk 02:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Okay? His convictions are notable, but they are only notable because of his prior actions, if he was completely unknown (long you are suggesting he was before his convictions) then his convictions would hold little to no weight. TheProfessionalNamer (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

RfC (Referring to Thomas Sewell as a convicted criminal in the first paragraph of the lede)

edit
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to include this information in the first paragraph. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should Thomas Sewell be referred to as a convicted criminal in the first paragraph of the lede? TarnishedPathtalk 05:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Support per WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT. The opening paragraph should follow major events in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 05:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - Unless I'm mistaken the altercation that led to the conviction appears to be the main reason for his notability. It's inclusion in the first paragraph fits well within MOS:LEADBIO. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Nemov He was in a 60 minutes segment prior to that, He was also in a 60 minutes segment, but that was after the attack on the security guard and so were a bunch of other characters. He was by no means the centre of attention. The attack on the security guard is what really amplified the main reason for his notability, particularly given the place it occured. I would think it is the main reason he gets articles in heaps of media outlets everytime he sneezes these days. TarnishedPathtalk 00:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Nemov, just out of interest here's the first version of the page when it was approved for mainspace out of Articles for Creation. TarnishedPathtalk 08:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak Support after having a quick read of the article I couldn't find anything saying Sewell served any time in jail, therefore I feel saying convicted criminal may be a bit misleading. Instead perhaps maybe saying "Sewell has been convicted of  ,  , and  " may be a bit more clearer for readers. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @GMH Melbourne FYI, have a read of the last sentence of the Cathedral Ranges section, which states he was sentenced to jail time already served. TarnishedPathtalk 02:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I still feel stipulating Sewell's convictions is more accurate, that being said, I am also fine with stating Sewell is a convicted criminal. ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Stipulate convictions without "criminal". Otherwise it sounds too much like someone who makes a living from serial crime. Senorangel (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: TarnishedPath, would you mind rephrasing the RfC question to remove the “Given that” premise? The question, as it follows the comma should be enough for neutrality. — HTGS (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @HTGS I've rephrased per your suggestion. TarnishedPathtalk 01:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak support - seems like to me that his main notability derives from his activities surrounding him being an Australian neo-Nazi, as evidenced by the articles title. His criminal behavior seems well covered in the subsequent paragraphs, and maybe, just possibly, those paragraphs could be reduced just a little bit to make room for a sentence about his anti-Trans views described in the March 2023: anti-transgender rights rally sub-section.
And on a side note, it appears he is also anti-immigration too, and apparently likes to recruit young boys into his cause: the young ones are more dedicated to the cause, making them preferable. Isaidnoway (talk) 🍁 02:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead problems

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago15 comments3 people in discussion
The topics discussed in this discussion have been resolved.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


@Cameron Dewe would you mind if I cut the lead-too-long tag? I don’t feel like the problem is actually the length itself, and I think if it is sorted for the lead-follows-body issues, that should sort it out.
To address the root of the problem, the body is structured in a way that makes it unintuitive how to add new topics (Views; Activities; and Personal life), so editors are likely to just add them to the lead. A common problem. — HTGS (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@HTGS: I think the lead is still probably a bit verbose, especially when it gets into the third and fourth paragraphs which appear to repeat, almost word for word, what is said in the body rather than summarizing the assaults he was convicted of in a sentence or two. Also the way these events are conveyed reads like an attack article as it focuses on the convictions first, not that the convictions arise out of criminal assaults. MOS:BLPCHRONO advises "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order." I take that to mean convictions are written about after the details of the assault are explained. The first line says he is a convicted criminal, the rest of the lead does not really need to go into that much additional detailed explanation, especially when this is explained in the body in the same detail as I see in the lead. Advice at MOS:LEADLENGTH implies that a lead should not exceed about 10% of an article and the number of words should be proportionate to the size of the article. Also it should give a appropriate degree of weight to the importance of various events subjects life.
To me, a short and more concise lead should actually discourage editors adding to the lead, as it would suggest they should look to the body of the article to add more detail; perhaps even adding a new section or two. As you indicate, part of the issue is the layout of the body, with Personal life coming after views and activities, which seems to leave no room for expansion. It might be better if the order was reversed, with a historical life outline in chronological order appearing first, followed by sections about views and activities. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cameron Dewe, with the material about the "Revealed documentary" being moved to the body can the tag about the lede containing information which is not contained in the body of the article be removed? TarnishedPathtalk 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @TarnishedPath. I had only skimmed the tags, so didn’t realise that was the only info not contained in body.
The same should be taken as true regarding the rest of the article. I am not well-versed on the topic, so I’ll leave cleanup to you and others, @Cameron Dewe. I certainly think a standard chrono order could well be an improvement; the only reason ‘Personal life’ sections usually come last is because for most bios that stuff is less relevant for the reader than the bulk of the body. — HTGS (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the personal life section, I dare say there's probably not going to be a hell of a lot available in the WP:RS to fill that out. The bloke's notability started when he decided he was going to go to a TV station and belt a security guard because he didn't like what the TV station was going to play about him and his merry bunch of LARPers. TarnishedPathtalk 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ps, I've removed the lede extra info tag as I believe that this has been addressed. TarnishedPathtalk 04:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
PS, I reduced the lede (particularly the 3rd paragraph) a bit. TarnishedPathtalk 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have removed reference to their New Zealand birth as the only reliable source I could locate is https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2023-10/sentencing-remarks-dpp-v-sewell-hersant.pdf and we can't use that per WP:BLPPRIMARY. TarnishedPathtalk 05:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TarnishedPath: Thank you - That was my primary concern about extra information being in the lead section. A person, born in New Zealand, but now residing in Australia, is entitled to call themselves an Australian because they are normally legally entitled to reside there. Their country of birth only becomes an issue if they Australian citizenship is an issue. So, suggesting the person is a "New Zealand born Australian" in the lead would suggest the article will include discussing issue with their place of birth in the Australian context. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cameron Dewe, I suspect the information about his country of birth was likely placed in the article by someone with a close relationship to him given I couldn't find much about it except in that court transcript and other wikis. It can stay out until such time that there are suitable sources to justify its inclusion. TarnishedPathtalk 06:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TarnishedPath: Thanks. In both New Zealand and Australia, one self-identifies their ethnicity. So if the subject chooses to claim he is a "European Australian" then he is entitled to claim so. To me, by his actions, the subject is identifying himself as "Australian" and does not see his country of birth as being a barrier to being one. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cameron Dewe, I found a single source that references his New Zealand birth in once of the grouped lists of citations. I've added it to the infobox, but I don't think his new zealand birth needs to be added to the lede as I only found it once. TarnishedPathtalk 08:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TarnishedPath: Agreed. I do not think his place of birth is significant enough to be in the lead section. Just the info-box is sufficient. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cameron Dewe, is the reduction in the lede sufficient do you think for removal of the lede notice? TarnishedPathtalk 11:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TarnishedPath: Yes, I think the lead section is a better summary now. It no longer reads like the evidence for every active criminal offence is being listed in the lead, just enough to characterize the nature of his offending and reasons for imprisonment. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I will review this. While it looks to be decently written and sourced from a skim over it, I have some major issues.

My biggest is, is this really all the information available about Sewell? There is so little about him here it doesn't feel like a biography at all. I cannot believe that with someone who has as high a profile as this guy that they have found nothing on him, besides individual listings of Incidents he has been involved with little commentary. As a result, this reads in a disjointed manner where it's just a few sentences that provide little context and then nothing else. What was he doing before this? What else does he do? Is there really nothing? Most sources are used only once, which indicates to me this article may not have WP:MINED its sources effectively.

With something like the Lads Society, for instance, this article barely explains what it is, so the stuff wrt Tarrant comes off like a non sequiter. What was he trying to recruit him into? Why did he reject it (I know for a fact the coverage says this)? What did the group do? What was his response to Chch, since his attempt to recruit Tarrant was a major controversy for him?

If there really isn't anything else, it shouldn't impact the GA, but I doubt it. Either way the article should be restructured because the incredibly brief early life section is awkward in relation to the rest of the article. It also just comes off like a list of incidents, which to some degree is perhaps unavoidable given the news cycle but there has to be some way to make this flow more naturally.

My concerns are fundamental enough to the way the article is structured that I think it would be to be difficult to address, but not impossible, so I won't quickfail this.

I will do a deeper/more formal look later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Another thing, this article has an excessive amount of citations on specific statements. If they're all needed, they should be bundled to be less of an eyesore. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@PARAKANYAA, I've done a bit of restructure to put the personal life sections and early life/education sections together so they don't appear so disjointed as random sentences. I've also added some other material about Sewell's personal life that I hadn't read before which I found in a source using ProQuest. I wouldn't have otherwise read the material as it was behind a paywall.
I've also added some material on the Lads Society and Tarrant. Lastly I've grouped a bunch of references together in different places.
Has what I've done make the article better?
What further suggestions do you have? TarnishedPathtalk 11:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Already a major improvement! Great job. I will do a deeper look now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section):   b (inline citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Sewell_(neo-Nazi)&oldid=1253684160"