Talk:Andrew Landeryou

Untitled

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Andrew Landeryou article. |- | style="background-color: #FFFFFF;text-align:left;" | Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. | style="background-color: #FFFFFF;" |

Talk page guidelines

Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

|} I don't believe it is true that Landeryou was arrested. There was a summons for him to appear, not an arrest warrant, and he returned voluntarily and placed himself voluntarily in custody. Someone should check these facts and amend the article accordingly. Adam 9 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

It was widely reported in the Herald Sun and the Age that Andrew Landeryou was arrested when he returned from Costa Rica. There was an arrest warrant issued when he failed to appear before the Supreme Court hearing into the collapse of MUSU. He chose not to post bail when he returned to Australia and was arrested at the airport. Check [Businessman faces court]Theusualsuspect 9 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Yes I see. He was arrested because he had not complied with the summons, not because he was to be charged with an offence. It's a very complex story which requires a properly researched article. Adam 9 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)

That's why it's a stub.Theusualsuspect 9 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Adam- Excellent summary.Theusualsuspect 9 July 2005 14:08 (UTC)

Removal of links

Adam Carr needs to explain why information from the following articles does not belong in this entry: "Landeryou threatened me, says liquidator" (David Elias and Leonie Wood) and "Landeryou appears in court" (Alison Caldwell) Cognition 14:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

All LaRouche cult edits to any article on my watchlist will be reverted. Adam 14:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore the policy against reverts and personal attacks, I will not hesitate to report you. Heed Everyking's warnings, or you'll be heading to arbitration soon. Now, are you ready to explain why information from the above articles does not belong in this entry? Cognition 14:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom ruled that all material emanating from LaRouche is original research and may be deleted on sight by any editor, except from articles closely related to LaRouche. Adam's quite right to delete your edits if they're LaRouche-related. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

My edits did not originate with the LaRouche movement. They originated with the Australian mainstream media. The comments above are misleading. Cognition 04:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

unsourced edits

• Why is Landeryou called a "journalist" if his chief income coems from business?
• How do we know that Landeryou was removed from office through a campaign against him organised by the left-wing Education Action Group itself condemned by the University Vice-Chancellor David Penington at the time as violent and politically motivated.?
• He is now being sued by Dean McVeigh the controversial liquidator of MUSU with eleven others in a lawsuit that makes sweeping claims yet has limited detail. Whose determination is that?
• Why were these three links removed?
  • Landeryou takes aim at enemies with blog (ABC Radio, 4 May)
  • Landeryou threatened me, says liquidator (David Elias and Leonie Wood)
  • Landeryou appears in court (Alison Caldwell)

There appears to be an effort to inject a strong POV into this article, without proper sources. -Willmcw 10:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Proper sources on such a contemporary matter are hard to define. The only publicly available sources are newspaper articles, but Landeryou has contested both the accuracy and fairness of these, contending that the Age is waging a vendetta against him because of the Socialist Left loyalties of certain Age journalists. This is obviously a self-serving claim, but it may also be true. Almost everyone who knows the facts of these matters is either a particpant or else violently partisan, and I don't have any better sources. Editors should proceed with care. Adam 11:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Updates and Changes

I have made a series of changes to this article and am keen to talk them through with those interested. But I'll tell you now, I'm not happy about people making sweeping deletions of my work without even the courtesy of discussing it. This article as it stood was quite shockingly biased and should not be allowed to continue. I am not saying my contribution is perfect but I think a discussion should occur so we can bring forward the facts. DarrenRay 03:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the more frivolous edits from my revised version. The earlier version with its false implications of criminality and so on are clearly grossly defamatory. Without evidence they should not be published here. Happy to discuss any specific concerns with the revised version if anyone has issues with it. DarrenRay 04:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Regurgitation of unsourced allegations made by Landeryou on his blog are hearsay. A link is already provided to his blog. Attempting to completely remove references to his involvement in the liquidation of MUSU is grossly POV.Theusualsuspect 07:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring and page protection

Due to recent edit warring, I've protected the article. Please discuss changes to the article contents here rather than revert each others contributions to the article itself endlessly. -- Longhair 07:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please restore the neutrality and factual error indicator on the article. DarrenRay 07:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the 'disputed' notice. -- Longhair 07:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I disagree with Theusualsuspect's attempt to remove references to Landeryou's blog which is clearly now notable as measured by press articles and other objective tests. Is that the only concern with the revised version? Looking forward to the discussion. DarrenRay 07:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we having the discussion about the factual errors now? I would hate to think the old version of the article full of factual errors and bias has been protected for nothing. DarrenRay 07:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What facts are you disputing, and what are your sources. Links or quotes to Landeryou's blog are POV, but the blog's notoriety is noted in the article.Theusualsuspect 07:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to place my position in the open, I'm not concerned on the article content, so long as whatever is in dispute has a valid reputable source I don't see a problem with any contributions. My role as an administrator was to stop the edit war from continuing, forcing editors to discuss article content here. My only edits to the article itself have been to place Mr Landeryou into relevant Wikipedia categories. If nobody wishes to discuss article changes after a suitable period, say a week or so, I'll remove the existing page protection. -- Longhair 07:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A discussion is fine, but it's hard to have a one way one. DarrenRay 07:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For a start, he is not a businessman. Do a Google search and you will see he is a full-time journalist and publisher. Practically every sentence of the earlier version is like this, either wrong, outdated or just part of an attack article. I believe comparing the revised version with the one you protected identifies the issues. I am pleased to discuss each and every change. DarrenRay 07:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Including information into Landeryou's involvement in IQ would be notable. He is not best known for his weblog, although his controversial claims made on the blog have attracted attention. Phrases like "There was more than a little puzzlement about the fact" are POV and are not encyclopedic. Including accusations made by Landeryou against reporters and former ALP officials is potentially libelous or hearsay, or at best should included in a different article (ie, Locke could go under the Victorian ALP). Links to blogs (such as the one to WSA caucus) are opinion and are as POV as links to Landeryou's blog. Including sentences like "Landeryou says that he plans to counter-claim against Lew" are likewise unverifiable.Theusualsuspect 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to the usualsuspect, there is presumably no problem sourcing Landeryou's opinion to his published statements. He is clearly now best known for his blog, on any objective measure. A discussion of weblog opinion is not out of the question either, particularly when that opinion is the subject of national media attention. Even those not liking the guy cannot really refute the press articles. Those who delete them saying all references to his high profile blog are engaging in POV of the least subtle kind. And looking at Adam's comments below, I agree with his remarks. The older version of this article is no more than an attack. The revised version is not perfect but I think is a good start in removing the attacks, updating the article for recent events and ensuring some balance of the kind that Adam refers to below. DarrenRay 08:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The real problem here is that this is a current news event, on which neutral sources do not exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper, and there are some things it can't do and shouldn't be made to try to do - like sorting out truth from propaganda in an ongoing legal and political dogfight. The main public source on Landeryou is articles in The Age, but as I noted earlier, Landeryou asserts that some Age journalists have political reasons for attacking him. This is obviously a self-serving and unverifiable claim, but it may also be true, and I happen to believe that at least in part it is true. Certainly the neutrality of The Age is disputed, and therefore its reports cannot be accepted as authoritative, though they can of course be quoted. That leaves us with no generally accepted source of factual information at all. The only way around this is to have the article consist almost entirely of reported opinion - Landeryou says X, his critics say Y, The Age says Z - and not attempt to draw conclusions or try to decide who is right. We should give lots of links to external sources so that people can follow the arguments for themselves if they want to. Adam 08:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Incremental changes

Wholesale rework of an article to a different POV will generate edit wars as evidenced in this article almost immediately after the protection tag was removed. It is far better to make changes incrementally over a period of time to allow other editors to review and discuss and controversy in relation to those edits rather one hundred changes in one edit. Wikipedia is about editing by consensus - not who reckons they're right. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't disagree. But your assumption that the grossly defamatory rehash of The Age and leftist personal opinion in the former article is the basis of the discussion is wrong. The new article is much better, not perfect but a better starting point. If you really are interested in incremental changes and discussions and consensus that's great. But let's be fair about it. The old article is a disgrace and I don't think anyone on this Talk page has actually bothered defending it. Start with the new article and I'm sure we can get there. --2006BC 23:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done an edit on the "Darren Ray version" of this article which I think is the superior of the two versions which were on offer yesterday, while removing Darren's more egregious POV. There are still a number of gaps in the story. Adam 23:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed to merging this article, which deals with matters well beyond the MUSU story. I think the article is now in reasonable shape and if all editors behave themselves it can remain so. Adam 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to merging the article. Landeryou is notable outside the MUSU saga - something not shared by the other protagonists. Ambi 05:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we now have a text which while not perfect is reasonably acceptable to all parties. Perhaps everyone should let it lie for a while and not provoke other users with petty POV edits. Adam 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Vanity links

It is inappropriate for editors who are the subject of this article to create redlinks for their names when they are far from notable and never likely to be so. I won't get into another revert war since their egos appear to be taken a battering but I will add a comment here on how absurd these useless edits are. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the history, Darren was actually the one who removed those redlinks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please withdraw the personal attack otherwise you will be blocked from using Wikipedia. --2006BC 03:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored the redlinks for Cass and Ray, and I am not the subject of this article. If Crawford is notable so are they. Adam 03:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The article on Crawford has just been deleted. And I don't see any reason for articles on Darren Ray or me. I think the links can be safely removed. --2006BC 03:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I did indeed overlook the last few edits as the wholesale reverts by Darren and Ben had previously restored these redlinks. Apologies to all for jumping to conclusions (although this instance is the exception rather than the norm). Garglebutt / (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Since four of us--Darren, Ben, Garglebutt and myself--agree to removing the redlinks, I've removed them. Hopefully no one else will take issue with it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 03:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please put the links back Sarah, these guys are well known (in)famous public figures who were widely alleged to have mismanaged a fairly large public institution and we should therefore have articles on them. -- pde 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to the subjects of redlinks to decide whether they are notable or not. It would be much better if Landeryou, Cass, Ray and Crawford all refrained from editing this suite of articles altogether. I realise that is not going to happen, but they need at least to exercise caution and restraint, and to provide justifications for their edits, to minimise (if not remove) the impression that their edits are merely self-serving. In this case there seems to be an agreement not to redlink the three names, so I will leave at that. Adam 04:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with me editing this article? I substantially rewrote this article, as then did you and I think you did a good job. I have no issue with what you've done. I don't see that knowing a person disqualifies one from being able to write about them. DarrenRay 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this several times. There is no rule against interested parties editing articles, or even against the subjects of the articles themselves doing so. Perhaps there ought to be, but there isn't. My view is that interested parties ought not to edit articles, but I accept that they are always going to. But interested parties, once their interest is known (as yours is), will always be suspected of editing out of self-interest, and this suspicion will often, though not always, be correct. It takes rare detachment to be able to edit about oneself with complete impartiality. I've seen no evidence here that any of the parties involved in this suite of articles possess such detachment. So such people (ie, you) need to exercise great care, to explain what you are doing and why, and to provide sources for statements of fact when these are likely to be disputed. Adam 05:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I am honest about who I am as an editor. As are you, Adam. And Sarah. And Darren. I know Andrew, he's a good guy. I don't sit around playing Nintendo with him for hours though. I just know him and I read his blog because it's interesting. I don't owe him any obligation to edit in any other way than I'd edit for anyone else. We are all interested parties, interested enough to edit. We all live in the same city and to some extent follow this news story enough to be interested in it. The point is that because I have been honest in saying who I am, some will pay attention to what I edit. I don't have a problem with that. What I am concerned about is that because I have self-identified, that is being used as a basis to personally denigrate everything I contribute to Wikipedia. And I cannot imagine how anyone sees that as a good thing. --2006BC 06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam has an excellent point. Whether or not you guys happen to prefer Nintendo or other forms of recreation has no bearing on it. -- pde

Removal of material should really be explained here. Blog references supporting facts are problematic I agree but not supporting opinion. I have restored them accordingly. DarrenRay 09:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Students Against Corruption

Was `Students Against Corruption' composed exclusively of revolutionary socialists? Or had they already started working with the labor left, as they did on and off through the 90s? -- pde 05:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It was actually a group called Education Action Group, I have corrected the record. I was a member of Students Against Corruption which campaigned against corruption in the extreme left so I think its composition changed over the years depending on who was running the Union. But the main left group was called EAG which from my research attracted much attention at the time for protests and other rebellions. I hear on the grapevine SAC though has been revived to discuss the appointment of Above Quota a business owned by Stephen Luntz, a Greens Party official as the independent returning officer at UMSU's elections. DarrenRay 05:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Corruption in the extreme left? Sounds juicy, do you have any details?

PS -- are you accusing Stephen Luntz of electoral impropriety, Darren? -- pde 06:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren Ray is a convicted criminal (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jail-for-student-union-fraudster/2008/02/06/1202233892223.html) and known associate of Ben Cass and Andrew Landeryou. His additions to this entry are questionable in the least and need not be heeded. Xy678 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Same as?

Is this the same person as [1] [2]? --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sanitising by IPs

Two IP users have tried to edit this bio favourably to Landeryou. IP 202.134.229.231 made the following changes:[3]

• Changed blogger to journalist, but I can't find a reliable source that describes Landeryou as a journalist.
• Removed mention of IQ Corp going into liquidation.
• Removed mention of being arrested.
• Removed bankruptcy and separation from his wife.
• Changed mention of Vexnews from "publishes the blog" to "is editor of".
• Changed account of event with Les Twentyman to details not in the sources.

IP 120.156.3.254 then went further:[4]

• Removed all mention of the MUSU financial case and his involvement in it.
• Changed heading "Blogging" to "Journalism".
• Changed link to Landeryou's blog to a link to Vexnews.

I've reverted these changes, as to me they're plainly not neutral. If editors want changes made along these lines, they're going to have to discuss them here. Fences&Windows 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• • More edits from another Melbourne IP, 120.155.227.185, again editing according to Landeryou's POV.[5] Fences&Windows 20:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • [6] Fences&Windows 01:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC) +[7] Fences&Windows 01:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the rules for semi-protecting a page, but that would probably be a good idea.Jarhed (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rebecca's deletions

Why has Rebecca deleted well-sourced material? Carola56 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you sanitising this bio? COI, perhaps? Fences&Windows 18:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Other front-page stories prompted by Landeryou's investigative reporting include a Fairfax story about Australian politicians sanitising their Wikipedia articles". Ha. The irony. Fences&Windows 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record

Before the articles for deletion debate on this article last year I had never heard of the man. I rewrote it entirely based on material in newspapers and books, and in the process found material about his business dealings, court case, leaving the country, and bankruptcy that had previously been excluded. Since then, IP editors (who it seems clear are working on behalf of or in favour of the subject) have been attempting to sanitise the article, removing sourced material Landeryou would not like and changing wording to make him sound better, e.g. blogger -> journalist, despite him only being described as a 'journalist' in a single source, and as a blogger multiple times.

These IP editors have refused to communicate, instead preferring to edit war. One now asserts in an edit comment that I have 'an agenda': my agenda is to keep this article neutral against the biased edits made by these IP editors. It is deeply ironic that Landeryou exposed on his blog politicians making edits to sanitise their own Wikipedia pages, only for Melbourne-based IP-hopping editors to do precisely the same thing on Landeryou's article. Fences&Windows 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Before discovering the same behaviour here I requested semi-protection at the Vex News article for the exact same reasons. I will be dealing with this as best I can. Hopefully he'll get the message and abide by the rules of WP.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no desire for an edit war. There's clearly material that's been removed that Landeryou doesn't like that should be included, like his bankruptcy (now discharged), his correct date of birth according to court records, and his avoiding the summons. There's also a whole lot of POV material calling him a "journalist" (if Landeryou's a member of any professional association of journalists or works for any formal media organisation outside his own blog it's not detailed in this article) and trying to advertise his "VexNews" site. Naturally the edits removing this material have been from anonymous IPs.

And dammit I've forgotten how to sign comments.

Why was the material on Landeryou's bankruptcy removed?

It was there some time back, and I've re-included it. It's clearly critical to understanding the man. It also is linked to his ongoing writing about Lew. It's also linked to how he got away with writing the sorts of things he did on his original blog. Clearly it should be included.

The weird sanitising of his Costa Rica escape that completely ignores that he avoided a summons was also fixed in the revert.

I wonder how long it'll be till AL or one of his mates tries to re-sanitise it again. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, it's supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garth M (talk • contribs) 23:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Undid unsigned reversion of the restoration of relevant material. - GarthM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garth M (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[redacted]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Garth M (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Is there a way to upload the PDF of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garth M (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Who "redacted" the ITSA record details, and why? Garth M (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverting edits

There's an allegation I have some agenda. My only agenda is for this article to be neutral POV and include all relevant material. Landeryou's bankruptcy, for example, should clearly be included. It's a fairly major aspect of any person, particularly one who writes the kind of provocative things he does.

The material I restored, btw, was from an earlier version of this page and not entered by me. It's material that is properly referenced and was clearly only removed because the subject of the page would rather present himself more favourably.

The material in the current version should not be removed without an explanation of why it's not encyclopaedic and should not be included.

Also I've remembered how to properly sign comments! Garth M (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Serious concerns about the article

Subject is barely notable especially given prominent media identities in Australia with no articles at all. That is no excuse for using article as an attack-piece. The Fences & Windows version of this article seemed quite OK. It needs some editing by those who can be dispassionate.

Other concerns:

• It seems very curious that someone would assert they had conducted a personal search on the subject of the story, a personal investigation into them and then claim no personal agenda in this article. This should be very alarming to Wikipedia authorities;

• Original research (claims about birthdates that contradict online sources) appears to have been done by one editor and has been now repeatedly inserted in the article, although we have no way to verify the accuracy of what is claimed as fact;

• The best example of the agenda being set is references to 'blogger' being favoured over journalist when he could be described as either or both. The assumption that one is better than the other is old-fashioned and repugnant to me but he is clearly a journalist and there are a number of references supporting this observation. We might not like his journalism but that's not the point.

• The material in this article - which is probably too long as it is - should be about the subject's notable activities, not a catalogue of every bad thing an adversary can dig up, and "prove" with one link. That's not encyclopedic and it is not what people come to Wikipedia to obtain;

• It is alarming that assertions about birth-dates and other assertions of personal addresses would be included on this Talk page. We cannot be sure about the accuracy of the information but either way it is concerning. This is almost certainly a violation of Wikipedia policies;

• It was suggested my account was new and was established only to edit this article. That is a misrepresentation, as anyone looking at my contributions can see. I have been editing for some time, although have had to break for personal reasons. My sphere of editing interest is broad but includes the political and journalism spheres in Australia. I don't think it's appropriate to attack people for having a differing perspective.

• There is a lack of civility and assumption of good faith here that is quite unsettling and has now greatly enhanced my interest in this article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for vendetta and must not be abused this way.

--Caterann (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Landeryou's bankruptcy is a matter of public record. It's a matter of serious concern that you insist on changing his bloody birthdate, for example. The ITSA record was included on this talk page and then somebody redacted it.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for whitewashing someone's record, and should not be abused in that way.

Landeryou has a website. He is not a journalist. Nobody but him calls himself a journalist.

You will note that the original version by Fences & Windows referred to above had these details - like Landeryou's bankrupcty - in it, before it was somehow deleted during 2010 some time.

Nobody believes that your edits to this article are neutral. Particularly the last one you've added about "Landeryou's journalistic abilities". And what's the source on the website hits claim? There is none.Garth M (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll also add, almost all the material restored here was written by other people (not written by me), and was present in the original Fences & Windows edit, except for the update about Landeryou's birthdate and the bankruptcy discharge date. When I did an ITSA search in relation to concerns about Landeryou, the wrong date from Wikipedia made the search more difficult. If that's the motive for putting "1970" when he was born in 1969, then it's a dishonest one that Wikipedia should not countenance. Garth M (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced and relevant material. This discussion page has previously discussed the relevance of Landeryou's bankruptcy. Stop deleting it. And stop adding clearly POV material about Landeryou's claims to importance, or unsourced claims like he was born in 1970 (which is unsourced because it's wrong) and the unsourced claims about his website hits.

Article needs a cleanup to be NPOV, but it is extremely POV to remove details like his bankruptcy and discharge. And if you have a source for your claim on his birthdate, share it.

For the record, for other editors - I have the PDF of the bankruptcy search of ITSA and can upload it. The proof of his birthdate and bankruptcy/discharge etc are there. Garth M (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

I've applied full protection to this article for four days because of the edit warring. I realize there are potential BLP issues here, so I ask editors here to try and come to a reasonable consensus in good faith on each of the contentious parts of the article. The version I have frozen was done completely randomly and represents no preference on my part, but is solely intended to try and prevent edit warring. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The text I restored that started this off had previously been debated and resolved. My concerns are basically:

• article should have the correct date of birth of subject (Redacted)
• article should include subject's bankruptcy and discharge and dates of both
• article should include material regarding the MUSU and IQ scandals, which were well-covered in the media at the time.
• article should not spend paragraphs of POV material of Landeryou's claimed "scoops".
• Landeryou does not work for any recognised media organisation - unless someone has some evidence that something's changed - and does not abide by any professional journalist's code or anything of the sort. He has a website. The original term for him "blogger" should not be exaggerated into "journalist".

Editors who look above will see that this material was discussed over a year ago, a resolution reached - and then when everybody had stopped paying attention, the negative material was quietly deleted and a whole host of positive unsourced guff (like the claim about his website hits) added. Garth M (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, as a result of a request from User:Steven Zhang, I have removed and deleted a number of revisions from the talk page history as they contain information that infringes on the privacy of the subject of this article, which goes against the WP:BLP policy. Please don't post them again. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That decision is outrageous, given that we are talking about a public bankruptcy record of a public bankrupt. And the material that includes his public address (which, by the way, is a tower block at which the subject cannot be found, and is an address he used to publish on his "Other Cheek" blog) is the only document to which we have access that proves

- his date of birth

- the date of the bankruptcy

- the date of the discharge of the bankruptcy.

If it's removed, how is the above to be established? The truth of the contents is pretty obvious. Garth M (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The question I would ask, is why is detailing the subject of the article is an ex-bankrupt so important? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 06:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why the bankruptcy is significant but what is certain is the above user should not be editing this article. Definite WP:POV issues. I am familiar with the Landeryou's work and can write objectively about its good and bad attributes but won't do so until this situation is dealt with. --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not adding any material written by me. All the material I've restored except for the correct date of birth and the bankruptcy discharge is material that other editors above already approved, previously. If I hadn't made any revision, the highly POV version created after the last dispute described above, whitwashing his record and adding a false birthdate, would have remained.

The relevance of the bankruptcy includes

• it's how he first came to public notice
• he's still writing public attacks from his VexNews site on Solomon Lew, the person who bankrupted him, but without acknowledging the link (that's what prompted me to check his wikipedia entry again)
• the bankruptcy is what ruled him out of the political career he was clearly aiming for early on (plenty of the external links in the article already point that out)
• VexNews' stock in trade is character assassinations - it's important for anyone targeted to know that he's no longer bankrupt and therefore judgment proof.
• bankruptcy is a serious event for any individual, and if they qualify for a Wikipedia entry then it's a detail that clearly is important enough to include.

All the above said, I agree with one thing Catherann said - it's highly doubtful whether Landeryou qualifies for a Wikipedia entry at all. Garth M (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's highly doubtful whether Landeryou qualifies for a Wikipedia entry at all, then what is all the fuss going on here?

• I don't agree Landeryou came to public notice because of his bankruptcy, it's from his writing that I'm aware of him, and that seems to have a specialist audience, to put it at its kindest.
• I've seen Landeryou repeatedly refer to his background with Solomon Lew (to the point of monotony) so that doesn't sound right.
• Don't understand the next point or why that's relevant to anything - does being a bankrupt rule him out of a political career, it didn't Chief Justice Garfield Barwick? And how is that relevant to including extensive references to bankruptcy while deleting other material related to his writing.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a guide for potential litigants against a political writer we hate. The sources in the article say he was made bankrupt at some point. That's all we have. It's not up to us to invent sources to make points that we insist are "important". There's a contradiction in what has been done here, the user wants to denigrate a writer he hates, so puts in material saying he's bankrupt. Then he wants to make people know they can sue him so he conducts his own research (and even pays for it!) to show that he isn't bankrupt. The hatred is clear and it's leading the thinking to be in complete circles. None of it has any place in this process.
• Bankruptcy is not relevant to this person's notability. The policy on this is clear 'Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.

I don't think it's wise for a user acting in this way to claim ownership of this article, while breaching nearly every conceivable relevant Wikipedia policy. --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talking of "denigrating" - nice work, Brandon. I don't "hate" Landeryou. I did do an ITSA search at a point when he was smearing me (that ultimately resulted in an intervention order in my favour, FTR) to see what steps could and should be taken.

What should I have done, when I realised important biographical details in the article - like his birthdate - were wrong? Ignore it because only people who don't know that it's wrong should edit his article?

Basically, I do not want to write this article. I don't want his mates using it for advertising, either. I want Wikipedia to be reliable: I want the entry to be encyclopaedic.

Brandon, the debate about his bankruptcy being included seems to have been held long ago, and you can see it above. (And, for the record, I was not involved.) Then a convenient time after that debate, when it had been resolved to include matters like his bankruptcy, somebody came in and quietly deleted it. And then it was left until I found it again some time later. Please read the entire discussion page and look at the revision history. My point regarding the bankrutpcy is that if it's going to be included - and I think it should, since his original notoriety was over the MUSU and IQ scandals, as confirmed by the media coverage - then it's important to note that it is now discharged.

In any case, is anyone seriously disputing that the birthdate in the article should be the correct one? How that detail gets in, given that you have a problem with the ITSA article having too much information, I don't know. But stepping back for a moment, presumably Wikipedia isn't in the business of putting out biographical details that are WRONG, and the 1970 birthdate is clearly wrong. (It has no sources, and that's because it's not true.)

Wikipedia editors need to watch ALL the edits being made to this article, and in the long term. Because the subject and his mates are happy to keep quietly adding POV stuff to boost the subject over time. The material they were adding, for example about claimed website hits and stories "broken" was not encyclopaedic, much was not sourced, and it was clearly using Wikipedia as a highly POV advertising tool.

I repeat: I don't want to write this article. But I want it protected from the subject and his mates' attempts to whitewash it, too.

It needs to be rewritten by somebody completely neutral on the subject. Garth M (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP policies are being flagrantly violated here. That's perfectly obvious, as others have pointed out.

There are options including 1) deleting the article, 2) merging it with VEXNEWS, 3) cleaning up the article in such a way that includes all interesting material consistent with the BLP policy. My own read of that is that the bankruptcy is relevant, if he's been sued in defamation or something like by Lew. If it's business related, that doesn't seem relevant to me unless Landeryou is notable as a businessman, which I very doubt. But it is not an option to allow a user with a close connection to the subject as appears to be the case from what is admitted above to persist in his efforts to attack the subject, even if he is a contentious character. I don't like at least 50% of what he writes but I'd defend to the death his right to say it. The vilification efforts, chronicled above, are nothing short of a disgrace and it's about time it was stopped. --Brandonfarris (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And while I'm steamed up about that, the measure of this article and the compelling proof that it has been written by those who wish to stupidly denigrate the man is the reluctance to describe him accurately as a journalist or news publisher. In the time of my observation, he's broken many substantial stories about politics and other events, that have led to candidates being disendorsed, state Treasurers quitting in scandal, sports scandals erupting, you name it. If anyone's a journalist, it's him. To deny this just because we don't like him and insist he's a mere blogger is petty, vindictive, mean and, more importantly, wrong. The world has moved on from the idea that journalists only exist at newspapers and TV newsrooms, eg Julian Assange --Brandonfarris (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In his attacks on me, Brandonfarris continues to ignore that

• The only new material I added was that the bankruptcy was discharged and the date of birth was wrong. All the other material was restored from when previous editors reached agreement at the conclusion of a previous edit war, before anonymous IPs then just quietly removed it.
• There is a whole host of POV material that the anonymous IPs and Caterann have been adding, that Brandon appears to have no issue with.

What "vilification" is Brandon talking about? What "attack"? All the material restored is sourced, written by others, and has been previously agreed-upon, if Brandon would care to look at the discussions above (which have nothing to do with me).

There is no source for the 1970 birthdate, of course because it's wrong. Whether the ITSA record is admissible or not, it's the only evidence anyone's presented as to the correct date. If you're not going to use it, then you should also remove the unsourced 1970 claim. (And the claims about his website hits etc.)

As for the "journalist" tag - obviously it should be consistent with Wikipedia general practice. It's clear that it's Landeryou who calls himself a journalist, not others - where's the independent source that he's a "journalist" - and the distinction is not in the scandals he might publicise, but in the fact that journalists have codes of ethics etc. There are professional associations of journalists. People don't just declare themselves journalists, they're recognised by others as journalists. Again I ask - what's the source on Landeryou being a "journalist" rather than a blogger?

The article should be restored to the state it was when the last edit-war ended, and before POV edits were inserted over the last year. Garth M (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Those prosecuting a personal agenda - as Garth M has admitted above - need to step away. Their edits are rarely helpful and in this case we have seen - on reviewing the past edits - substantial material removed without discussion. It's just not helpful and is probably scaring off legitimate contributions.

Is Landeryou a journalist? I think he is. And by the standards set in Julian Assange he most certainly is.

*Dictionary defintion: the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news[8]

*An article in the - note - Media section of The Australian writing about Landeryou's notorious news reporting, controversial as it is. [9]

*An ABC Lateline TV report by Rafael Epstein that describes Landeryou as an "independent journalist"[10]

*A popular site 'Club Troppo' that describes his early blog efforts as "citizen journalism": "The other dimension to this story is the way Landeryou has managed (and not for the first time) to beat the mainstream media in straight news reporting. As I observed in a comment last night, whatever you might think of him (and I don’t like the extreme defamation and seemingly malicious personal smear campaigns), Landeryou clearly has some very good sources, including within the Victorian Electoral Commission. Gutter/tabloid though he may be, Landeryou is one of the few bloggers who is actually practising real news/investigative journalism, and I hope he keeps it up. I think he’s a really interesting blogosphere phenomenon and worth watching closely. " Now that was five years ago and a lot has changed since then.[11]

Plus there's material deleted by the above user for reasons that hasn't been justified:

* Landeryou was born in 1970 - was 35 in 2005 -my maths isn't great but I think that's why it's been listed as 1970.[12] Why was this deleted? Unless we have another usable source, that's what I think we'll have to rely on.

* "Commenting on Landeryou's journalistic abilities, the Victorian Greens party leader Greg Barber told the Legislative Council: I note that in the past the Hansard was only an unofficial newspaper report of the Parliament and over time evolved into becoming the official record. Maybe 100 years from now the Hansard will be called the Landeryou. He added "He is obviously well informed about matters that move through this chamber." [27]"[13]

* ""Landeryou has some purchase in the mainstream media with a News Limited column, but essentially he's working in the blogging space, using his political, business and media contacts to embarrass, harass and hold to account the state's worthies and not-so-worthies, and his own enemies, through open publishing.

* "Whatever you think of his politics, Landeryou is a lively and engaging writer who find things out - one whose "inquisitive" approach allows him to uncover and share new information."

Jason Wilson, ABC News, 2008[5]" [14]

Deleting this material, pretending Landeryou is a mere blogger, and not the controversial and certainly imperfect journalist the above sources suggest, is highly revealing in my view of an agenda that has no place here. --Brandonfarris (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Brandonfarris continues to ignore earlier debates on this discussion page - it is as if he hasn't read them - and on ignoring points made by me. He simply keeps abusing me for the crime of actually being sufficiently aware of Landeryou's existence to recognise the false details that had been inserted quietly over the last year or so.

I have not created any negative material, just restored material previously agreed by other editors. I am not "prosecuting a personal agenda", although I become increasingly concerned that Brandonfarris might be. Brandonfarris - do you know, have you ever communicated with the subject of the article?

As for the birthdate: Brandonfarris might be happy with a false birthdate (Okay, in April 2005 The Age says he's 35, which means he was born between April 1969 and May 1970, which still puts the balance in 1969, which conveniently happens to actually be the correct year). I would've thought Wikipedia would have concerns with having it clearly wrong. Hell, the 1970 date didn't even have a circa next to it, which is clearly appropriate if it's being guessed at from the "35 in 2005" article.

I agree with not putting his full birthdate if he has a concern about it being published - as obviously he does - so it should be corrected to 1969. We can all see that it's 1969 - even if the ITSA document can't be used directly, is any editor seriously disputing that it's more likely than anonymous websites to have his date of birth correct? It would be strange indeed for Wikipedia editors to prefer a false date in order to avoid considering a public record.

As for journalism v blogger - If you look at the entry from earlier by Fences & Windows, it's clear that it's a campaign by Landeryou to have what he does called "journalism" for vanity reasons. Brandonfarris thinks that anyone publishing a scandal sheet - without reference to any professional standards, professional rules, membership of professional organisations, liability for errors and falsehoods - is a "journalist".

In any case, if someone wants to make the change TO calling him a "journalist", after the last dispute, then they should start a heading here "blogger v journalist" and thrash it out. It shouldn't be just silently added by his mates without reference to this talk page, as it was in the last year or so.

The quotes I removed are clearly one-sided vanity quotes added by persons friendly with Landeryou. There are no balancing quotes - which clearly exist - and they overweigh the article in his favour. They imply some kind of consensus that what Landeryou does is respected, where clearly the majority of coverage of him would be negative.

Again I say - the article needs to be rewritten by someone with no connection with Landeryou (and I suspect that Brandonfarris and Caterann have in reality MUCH closer connections with the subject than I do) who isn't going to be swayed by the fact that Landeryou's mates have now swamped the article with the most positive material they can find on him. Garth M (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Indented line

Are Bolt, Assange and Landeryou journalists?

We have no idea what the correct birthdate is beyond the incessantly repeated contributions of one user who admits a connection with the subject and has engaged in original research, uploading what purported to be original documents. Those activities alone ought be enough to have him banned, but as it relates to the birthdate, it doesn't really help us much. 2005-35=1970, I presume that's why it's been recorded that way previously and until we find something else. I'd accept The Age as a source over the assertions of an anonymous Wikipedia user with an admitted grudge. Let's move on from there please. Those uploading purportedly original documents with probably false dates and other strange information ought consider the ethics of what they're doing and also the legality of it. I don't know that has happened here but it wouldn't surprise me from what I've seen play out on this article. It's been quite an eye-opener.

As I have written on the Andrew Bolt Talk page, calling someone a journalist is not a term of endearment, it's a description of their activity. There can be good journalists and bad ones. We're not here to make judgments. Landeryou is a journalist by any definition and should also be called a publisher in the same way as I note Julian Assange has been. Assange doesn't write a lot of news stories as we classically understand them, that's not his kind of journalism, he obtains and releases documents. Some might quibble with that and question whether it's journalism in the same way as newspapers do it - or indeed how Landeryou does it - but it fits in all three cases. There is plenty that Bolt, Assange and Landeryou publish that is displeasing but that doesn't mean they're not journalists. Indeed, I would say, the converse is true.

They publish opinion, in addition to or instead of facts. That, again, doesn't mean they're not journalists, any more than it means the leader writers of the New York Times aren't journalists or that The Age's Paul Austin stopped being a journalist when he changed from reporting on Victorian politics to writing the Age's leading articles and being opinion editor.

Finally, the quotes are quite reasonable and I think shed light on the subject, if there are others, they should be used but persistently removing useful material as part of a campaign of denigration and vilification is not what Wikipedia is about. The article will come out of protection and we won't make any progress if one user's admitted agenda gets in the way. --Brandonfarris (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To my reasoning, Andrew Bolt and Andrew Landeryou are pseudo-journalists, they rarely do any actual reporting of news, rather they craft, assemble and fabricate stories using a mixture of fact and fiction, hardly journalism. Assange is more of a publisher, but journalist could also apply. Nick carson (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that Landeryou is a journalist by "any definition" and in nay case, no reliable source that describes Landeryou as journalist exists that I can find. He isn't a member of the Australian Journalists Association, doesn't comply with ethical standards of the Australian Press Council nor is vexnews a constituent organisation (Bolt and Herald Sun are so complaints can be made). Political blogger is accurate in my opinion. Claims must be referencedmFlatOut 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of talk to build consensus

Many substantial changes were made to the article restoring content added by a banned user without any attempt to discuss or build consensus. What can be done about this to avoid conflict. Certainly the article has not been improved at all. We have already a discussion about journalist is appropriate. I think withholding the term from disapproved journalists is bad practice, and we have the ABC as a source, can we resolve that for a start? --Caterann (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the term journalist, as I think that is correct. There's an ABC source that has been previously cited, are they are an acceptable option? If there's no objection to them, I'll include them. Also the material relating to bankruptcy doesn't seem to relate to current notability, so I think could be a BLP problem. It's a shame to lose all of that material but unless it relates to publishing/journalism, it may have to go. Any thoughts on how this could be dealt with.?--Caterann (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

HSU

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/claims-galore-of-unhealthy-activities-at-health-unions-election-20121206-2ayby.html The Age 7 December 2012 Claims galore of unhealthy activities at health union's election by Clay Lucas

Mr Bolano said that on Tuesday night a member of his campaign team was hit by a car driven at slow speed by blogger Andrew Landeryou.

Mr Landeryou, who is close to Mr Shorten and supporting Ms Asmar's campaign, vehemently denies the claim.

A campaigner for Mr Bolano, Dustin Behrens, said he was at the Health Services Union's South Melbourne office on Tuesday night when he was hit by a car driven by a man he believed to be Mr Landeryou. I rolled off the car. The impact hurt but I don't have any lasting injuries, he said.

Mr Landeryou said he had not been in South Melbourne on Tuesday night and any claims he was were scurrilous.

--101.160.156.188 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Note in refwerence tot he debate above, The Age refers to him as a blogger not a journalist --101.160.156.188 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

VEXNEWS closed down

Someone should mention that VEXNEWS has effectively closed down. The website is still up, but has not been updated for over a year, and the top story is Andrew Landeryou claiming (tongue-in-cheek) to be sacked. I don't know what Andrew Landeryou is doing these days, but not VEXNEWS any more it appears. Someone should update article accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.1.138 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Renominated for deletion - blogs now offline/dormant

Landeryou's notoriety was the main reason this entry wasn't deleted last time. It was based on his blogs, which are now offline or dormant. Garth M (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There is extensive coverage of Landeryou in reliable, third party sources. Flat Out (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

where? Garth M (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The blogs are defunct - updated to reflect this

Updated to reflect that the blogs are long-since gone.

Are the paragraphs about VexNews proudly boasting of "stories" it "broke" really appropriate for an encyclopedia? It reads very much like someone trying to make the websites seem important with HEY LOOK ANDREW BOLT SAID SOMETHING NICE ABOUT ME.

What exactly is Landeryou's notability? Is it that he ran some blogs? Or the Melbourne Uni stuff? Garth M (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2017

Please add to Background paragraph: 1. Is married to Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching. 2. In December 2016 was charged criminal vandalism in relation to the 2016 federal election campaign. Quenta oz (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  16:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Detail of blogging section is un-encyclopaedic

At the moment, the blogging section seems like a list of "every compliment I've ever gotten about my blog" and "look at the stories I was connected to". Imagine such a section for a news website that actually reported news. If the blogging is notable - and I have serious doubts that it is - surely it should be reduced down to a description that he ran those blogs, not every compliment he was ever paid. Garth M (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

Editor ShaneTherapist possibly conflict of interest with article subject.

Section on David Langsam and restraining order has been heavily amended not according to information from cited article. Information regarding Andrew Landeryou's vandalism charges has also been amended. 121.208.45.99 (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I've rolled the article back to the last version before these changes were made since they mainly appeared to be for the purpose of removing negative, sourced material, and gave no explanation for the removal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)