Talk:Waubra Foundation

Attack page

This page pretty much consists of criticism directed against the subject, aggravated by listing named individuals. There is no attempt at balance, just a faux-objective tone while the kicking continues. Sources cited are dubious, such as "independent news sources" that turn out to be partisan blogs, or primary sources such as letters. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. You make an excellent argument for cleanup, but not for speedy deletion. At most, the criticism section should be removed, but not before examining every source to make sure reliable non-misrepresented sources aren't being removed either. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Most sources were primary documents, unreliable sources such as blogs, or a smattering of sources used to synthesis claims never explicitly stated. I found one good reliable source - the ABC - but it turned out to be a reference to an unpublished document. The whole section was basically a smarmy attack on the group with zero attention to WP:NPOV. --Pete (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit history of the article shows that significant swaths of the criticism section were removed, and then restored, with just a bit of rewrite. Looks pretty much the same to me. The sources that remain appear OK, but care should be taken to ensure that the sources are not misrepresented. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the version of the article with the criticism sections removed was a problem, because it read in such a whitewashed way that Waubra's PR people couldn't have done a better job. However, I agree with most of Skyring's edits in that was there originally wasn't well sourced and relied on synthesising information in a way that Wikipedia doesn't allow (with one section throwing in a few BLP violations for good measure), and for this reason let most of his deletions stand.

This said, the article still reads as quite a whitewashed article on what remains an extremely controversial organisation in energy debates in Australia. The sources are absolutely plentiful to cover Waubra directly, without the original research and bad writing of the initial version, and some of them are even already (but under)used in the article. One particularly glaring gap in the article (though there are others) is the total lack of any coverage of the extremely common criticisms about Waubra's health claims. I don't particularly care enough about the subject to write it myself, but non-Australian editors still need to recognise that this still reads like a PR puff piece. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The article sucks, simple as that. I should go through and pull out more dodgy sources. And no, it's hardly a puff piece. It needs balance, good sources, some history. But I don't know if there will be anything encyclopaedic left if we pull out all the primary sources, all the criticism, all the synthesis. If we have an article that does nothing more than list the board members, what sort of an article is that? --Pete (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There are tons of reliable sources on Waubra which cover it in all its aspects. The article doesn't even properly harness the sources already cited in it, which would be a good place to start, though it's not like there is in any way a shortage of easily accessible further material. I find it very telling that you listed "criticism" with "synthesis" and "primary sources". We need to get rid of the last two, but if you strip out all the first one, you wind up with exactly what this article was before - an article so whitewashed Waubra's PR team couldn't have done a better job. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A function of the criticism being founded on dodgy sources and synthesis. Poor wikimanship. As I said a month ago, it's an attack article. I forget what put me on to it now, probably a biased edit in some other article and I followed up the editor contributions, but when I looked at it and the sources it just screamed bias and I set to work. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

But the criticism is in abundance in reliable sources - and, in this case, reliable sources that were already cited (if very badly used) in the article. There wasn't any need for the synthesis to cover these issues when reliable sources have already said exactly the same things in detail. The coverage in the article was definitely crap, and I agree that it was something of an attack page - but the revised version is still a puff piece. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The ‘criticism’ section has been revised, split up one of the headings and additional sources included to address the above comments. 1955Dewayne (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bold addition. I've reverted it. Please discuss before reinserting.

1. Most of the material is of marginal relevance to the Waubra Foundation. If you want to discuss health effects of wind turbines, may I suggest Wind Turbine? Likewise the qualifications of a board member. Take it to the biographical article. If it doesn't affect the subject of the article, it doesn't belong here - find a more relevant place to put it.

2. Maybe some of this material deserves a sentence and a link. But only where it affects the Waubra Foundation.

3. We don't need editorial opinions inserted into the text.

4. Taking a closer look at some of the sources used. We need reliable sources. Not primary sources such as court submissions. Nor opinion blogs. If the mainstream media hasn't reported a story, why should we cover it? I strongly support the use of the ABC as a source. We use them in this article already, and they are unlikely to be challenged, so long as they support our text. Likewise major metropolitan dailies such as The Sydney Morning Herald.

Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC).

The health effects of wind turbines are only relevant insofar as people have commented on the specific claims put forward by the organisation in that context. There are plenty of reliable sources about this. This is the same for much of the issues with material critical of Waubra - 1955Dewayne's ignorance of the WP:RS policy doesn't change the fact that reliable sources nonetheless exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, in regard to the latest disputed edit: I fail to see the relevance of the CEO's ethics issues, unless there is a link to Waubra and its activities that isn't made clear from anything there currently. The section about their claims is important, but nearly all the sources need to be replaced because the text is trying to argue with Waubra's claims directly rather than citing criticism of Waubra's claims in reliable sources. I have re-added the section about their charity status being challenged as this version (unlike the original) contains reliable sources for it and it is significant, but have removed the last sentence due to its irrelevant source. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The charity status was challenged, yes, but nothing happened, so it's just someone having a whinge. Hardly encyclopaedic. --Pete (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be an ongoing issue, and the (two month old) Business Spectator article cites a bunch of AMA and medical sources as being dubious about Waubra being a health promotion charity, and specifically linking it to the Australian Vaccination Network controversy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A spokesman for Greens senator Richard Di Natale expected the review of Waubra's status by the Tax Office and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission to be finished this month. That was six months ago. The March article has no specific update. The WF remains a charity, so presumably the review mentioned by the Greens came out in favour of the WF. I'm not seeing this as any sort of a story other than "Greens unsuccessfully whine about wind farm critics". --Pete (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This article disagrees with your suggestion that it's not a live issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It brings up nothing new on any government review, just a mention of Di Natale's complaint of six months ago. It mentions an AMA study and attempts to synthesise a connection where none exists. Likewise the anti-vaccination mob. If the charity status is ever revoked, that's a story we can use. As it is, we have a whinge from the Greens that failed. How is that encyclopaedic? --Pete (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you please address these points. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the CEO ethics section, I'm seeing firstly the BS source complaining that the WF has a history of being associated with anti-wind farm protests. Well, whoop-de-do. Second, if the CEO has energy industry interests, that's something that belongs in the section about the CEO. Oh look, we already mention this. I'll check the refs there and keep the most reliable, but delete the "Independence" section. --Pete (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this edit. This was a sneaky attempt at burying issues with their ties to the fossil fuel industry by slipping it into a long sentence talking about the CEO's ties to a bunch of random organisations. 1955Dewayne might need to learn to use reliable sources, but you need to stop acting like a PR person for Waubra. Their version is an attack piece, your version is a puff piece, and I'm going to hold you both to WP:NPOV. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following you here. Mitchell has energy industry interests and we have reasonable sources for them. That belongs in the para on him in the Key people section. Do we need to spell out that fuel mining interests and renewable energy interests are opposed, do you think? As per WP:CRITICISM, we should delete criticism sections and move material to other relevant sections. I'm not seeing any reason to keep the information that WF is involved in wind farm protests. That's what they do. --Pete (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The fact that an organisation that purports to be raising health issues with wind farms has serious ties to the fossil fuel industry is a substantial part of why Waubra is so controversial. There are umpteen great sources covering this. Attempting to bury it in a lengthy paragraph with irrelevant information about the CEO is simple spin that cannot be justified on any vaguely neutral basis.

I am also really dubious that we need biographies of every rando involved with Waubra. Much of this information is irrelevant, similar information isn't in articles on any other organisations or businesses, and it has the distinct appearance of being in the article purely to try to bury the lede on anything potentially controversial. Things like some dude's ties to the World Wildlife Fund are at least as irrelevant as the ethics issues already stricken from the article.

I am fine with the elimination of the criticism sections if these issues and sources were actually incorporated into a rewritten article, and not deleted or minimised in a Waubra's-PR-people-couldn't-do-better kind of way. I don't buy that either of you are up to writing a neutral article that did that, though - you've both got too strong an agenda here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say great sources, but I agree that it's important information. I'm not attempting to bury it, just put it in the most relevant location as per WP:CRITICISM wikipolicy. More than happy to trim useless information such as the WWF ties you mention, but remember that this is an article about WF, and listing the board members seems to be in keeping. May I suggest that we keep the discussion on the material and not the editors? That's also policy. Best to follow policy. --Pete (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it isn't remotely the most relevant location: the organisation's ties to the fossil fuel industry are a lot more significant to the existence of the organisation than in slipped into a long list of irrelevant organisations in a personal biography of the founder - a biography which I'm arguing has minimal justification for being in the article in the first place. Looking around at articles on other organisations and businesses reinforces my view that this entire section needs to at least be dramatically downsized. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The organisation's ties to fossil fuel interests are only through Mitchell. Not sure why you removed the ABC cites as "crap sources", could you explain, please? --Pete (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of irrelevant stuff about board members and a couple of cites to blogs. This shouldn't be controversial. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you address the points above, please. The only links to fossil fuels are through Mitchell. Trying to imply some wider connection without any sources seems a rather bold move. Likewise, removing ABC sources and retaining partisan sources such as yes2renewables.org doesn't seem to gel with our reliable sources policy --Pete (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The ABC source became redundant when I deleted the content that it was cited to support. I haven't touched the yes2renewables.org link so I have no opinion on it. Having gone over the sources again, I agree that their fossil fuel links appear to be mainly be through Mitchell, but the organisation is run out of the office of his resources business and shared a postal address with it until recently, so it is inappropriate to try to put those details into a biographical section on him. A further issue with this section that I've realised in reviewing the sources is that the article subtly misrepresents Waubra's repeatedly claimed neutrality on wind issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The ABC articles (such as this one) you removed look to be good, even-handed sources. Calling them crap sources seems to be unwarranted. The organisation's postal address is the PO box of the chairman. How is this some sort of organisation-wide lack of independence? Is there a link to fossil fuels through any other member? Could you provide a link to some of these "repeated claims" by WF that they are independent, please. I'm seeing a statement of support for independent health research, which is something rather different. --Pete (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be keen to include an orphan source that isn't actually backing up anything in the article, which as I've now stated twice was the reason it was removed. If you want to include it as a source for relevant content, go right ahead. The "crap sources" I removed were blogs. I think you must be the rare case who doesn't view an organisation claiming to be an independent voice on wind farms and sharing a PO box with a resources company as being a conflict of interest. There are tons of reliable sources discussing this. As for the last bit, I retract that one: while it seems they've made claims in the past, they clearly aren't doing it currently. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WF doesn't claim to be independent. I'm asking you again for one of these "tons" of "repeated claims". There is no question that there are links to fossil fuel industries, but it is unclear how strong these are and the only link is via the chairman. Through his PO box. One might infer all manner of things by this, but inference, speculation, and synthesis have no place in this article. We need a reliable source to make a claim. Please provide such a source. If no sources can be found, then we must remove the unsupported statements. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not synthesising anything. These ties are already being discussed in reliable sources (indeed, in most journalistic coverage specifically about Waubra), including but not limited to those already in the article which you've been trying to remove. You're trying to downplay or delete things contained in most coverage of Waubra in reliable sources that you don't like. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking YOU for a source where WF claims they are independent. Let's start with that. You say there are "tons". I can't find one. Can you? --Pete (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They claimed to be when they applied to the NHMRC, as they also do on their objectives on their website. Once again, there are many reliable sources discussing this issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A link. I'm asking you for a link. If we don't have a source we can link to, then we can't use something that is unsourced. That's basic Wikipedia. Getting a little hard to assume good faith here if I ask you repeatedly for sources you say are plentiful, but you cannot provide. If the links can't be provided immediately, that's fine, we'll adjust the text to suit what we have and modify it when we can find a link. --Pete (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Now you're doing the same thing as 1955Dewayne - you're trying to include original argument. The article summarises the reliable sources cited. If you want to argue with those sources, you need to cite reliable sources of your own. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, thanks. I'm noting we don't have a source saying that WF claims to be independent. You say there's lots, but you can't find one. That's a strike against your credibility. Let's move on. Next point. Can we identify a source linking anybody else but the chairman with fuel mining interests? You've noted the post office box, but that's synthesis, and in any case doesn't involve anyone but the chairman. Over to you. --Pete (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to summarise the issues that come up in most in-depth journalistic coverage of Waubra, which invariably involve discussion around their claimed independence and their fossil fuel ties. I've pointed out informally where both of these stem from but ultimately my opinion is irrelevant because that's what the sources discuss, and if you want to challenge those sources, you need to actually come up with some sources of your own instead of trying to include exactly the same sort of original argument you criticised 1955Dewayne for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

WF doesn't claim to be independent. We discussed this. You couldn't find a source. I'm happy to identify the chairman's links with fuel mining against his name - there's no evidence anyone else has similar links and again, you can't identify any such source when pressed. As per WP:CRITICISM we put critical material in the most appropriate location rather than tip it all into one big bucket. That way we can balance it as per WP:NPOV. This is pretty basic policy. --Pete (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you're trying to do the same as 1955Dewayne: you're trying to argue with reliable sources about Waubra (and raising issues around their independence) by making your own original argument, and since we don't do that I won't be having it. Equally, once again, you can try to delete or minimise all material that could be seen to vaguely reflect badly upon Waubra - which your repeated stunt of trying to bury the founder's massive ties to fossil fuel industries in a personal biography is - is always going to run into your unfortunate problem of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Let's stick to policy. The only link to fuel mining - and uranium is not a fossil fuel, just quietly - is through Mitchell. I'm happy to make that the focus of his mention here. It seems to me to be a key part of the article, not something to be buried. My problem with the article is that there are few good sources and it deals mostly with synthesis and speculation. It's improved out of sight since I first identified it as an attack article, but there is a way to go. Since we both raise NPOV concerns, I think the time has come to seek wider input, as I've flagged above. --Pete (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've raised a discussion at the NPOV Noticeboard. I'm hoping we can get some good advice on how to proceed. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The "synthesis and speculation" added by the original author is long gone from the article, and now seems to serve as an excuse for your attempts to delete or bury reliable sources that don't fit with your agenda. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My agenda here is to turn an attack article into something compliant with our NPOV policy. I'm not speculating on the motives of any other editors, no matter my private thoughts on their purposes. Let's keep the discussion on the content, on the compliance with wikipolicy, and not on each other. I'm still seeing synthesis and speculation in the difference between what we have sources for and what the article says. The matter of the post office box, for example. --Pete (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean the post office box that isn't currently mentioned in the article at all? Keep up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see the discussion has moved on. I don’t want to cover too much old ground and will try and keep my comments to the relevant sections of the talk page. Thank you all for the advice regarding sources. I’m committed to improving the article.1955Dewayne (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cited material and legal status of Ms. Laurie

"Laurie has not been denied expert status at courts and tribunals in Australia and Canada" I read the citations to say the opposite of this statement. Perhaps I am mistaken because of the legal language, but it looks to me like she was denied expert status, at least in Quebec. ghh 13:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs) Thanks, section corrected.1955Dewayne (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Charity status

The Waubra Foundation holds a charity status, allowing tax-free donations to be made. The Greens in 2013 challenged this, asking for a review which they claimed in December 2013 would be completed that month.[1] It is now six months later, we have heard nothing more and the tax-free status remains. If we believe the Greens, then the review must have come out in favour of WF. I don't think we need include this failed stunt in our article. Any mention at all is too much weight. The mention by the Business Spectator in March 2014 was nothing more than speculation, which has no place here. --Pete (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It was widely reported and its status is still deeply controversial and not just in the Greens. You can't disappear significant coverage in reliable sources because they don't comply with your agenda. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

if you can find good sources that indicate something more than I have outlined above, please show them. The best I could find was the SMH, and it still doesn't indicate anything more than a failed review initiated by the Greens. WF still shows their charity status, six months after the Greens said the thing was complete. --Pete (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to edit-war over this, fine. You'll get to four reverts before I do. Having said that, edit-warring is lame. The simple fact is that you are trying to insert material that goes against policy and I am more than happy to get more eyes on this and more voices in the discussion. I removed the material because you couldn't come up with a source showing any currency, when repeatedly asked to do so. The best you found was speculation and we can't use specualtion.--Pete (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the Waubra Foundation's website, the ACNC "wrote to the Waubra Foundation on 13th February, 2014 indicating that [ACNC] intend to revoke our classification as a “health promotion charity” and that certain tax concessional consequences may follow" and last month, on 4 April 2014, the Waubra Foundation wrote back. I found that with a Google search for 'waubra acnc' so I'm at a loss to understand Skyring Pete's complaint. NebY (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, NebY. Skyring, labelling my attempts to stop you deleting that key piece of information from the article as "vandalism" looks just a little bit more ridiculous now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I thank NebY for the effort too. I was unaware of the letter - I tend to leave primary sources such as correspondence and court transcripts out of my consideration, give that Wikipedia discourages their use as cites. There was no mention of this in the media sources brought forward to support the inclusion of the statement. On further reading I note that WF responded to the ACNC saying, "you have assured us that this request for us to “show cause” is not related to Senator Di Natale’s complaint."[2], though the ACNC's letter stating this is not provided. If we accept the ACNC's reported position, then the Greens' complaint was indeed a failed stunt, though the coincidences in timing and subject raise doubts. I described the actions of the Greens as a stunt, because that is exactly what politicians do - they highlight their own actions and downplay or conceal any negative effects.

I'll withdraw my opposition to the material being included, though it certainly needs to be rewritten. One point is that we don't have a good secondary source. I also note that Drover's Wife didn't find it either, despite repeated requests for better sources.

My charge of vandalism referred to the deletion of the list of key people, as is obvious from the edit summary. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Key people

Either the section on the board members needs to actually list all the board members or it needs to not exist. Listing and profiling board members with random members deleted, as was the case after Skyring's edits to it before I removed it, is confusing and misleading. I am unconvinced that it serves a purpose to begin with, as similar organisations' articles do not have such a list, but if it stays at a bare minimum it needs to actually list the people it's supposed to list. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't checked the missing board members but the profiles in Pete/Skyring's last revision[3] (just now deleted) do appear selective by comparison with those on the Waubra Foundation's website. Two quick examples:

• Tony Hodgson
  • this article: "opponent of nearby wind farm (Collector) and president of anti-wind farm group Friends of Collector"
  • Waubra Foundation: "founder of ... largest specialist Corporate Recovery & Insolvency business in Australia... Chairman, Melbourne Port Corporation; Deputy Chairman & Chair Audit Committee, Tabcorp Holdings Limited; Director & Chair Audit Committee, Coles Group Ltd.; Director & Chair Audit Committee, HSBC Bank in Australia... member of the Advisory Council at JPMorgan and of the Advisory Board at Pact Group Ltd."
• Dr Woolridge
  • article: "opponent of wind farm proposal near family property"
  • Waubra Foundation: "Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University and an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Melbourne.... member of the Australian Parliament from 1987 to 2001 and Commonwealth Minister for Health from 1996 to 2001"

At first glance, the Wikipedia profiles appear written to suggest rural and campaigning backgrounds of the board members rather than their business and political experience, even to the extent of completely omitting the board member whose main career seems to have been as a senator's staffer. NebY (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can lay the matter of selecting board members at 1955Dewayne's feet, not mine. The Senator's staffer goes to the matter of sourcing. Without a reliable source to indicate that Alexandra Nicol was a staffer, we can't say she was. The actions and opinions of the Senator are irrelevant. Saying that a staffer holds the views and is responsible for the actions of an MP is a pretty long jump. My next step was to work on the other profiles, which seem to have been very selectively written to make them appear as anti-windfarm as possible.

Regardless of whether we keep or lose the profiles, the fuel mining interests of the chairman need to be included.

I regarded the deletion of the "Key People" section as an act of vandalism, because it was not discussed previously. In any case, a Bold edit, promptly Reverted, should be Discussed. Which is where we are at now. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to repeatedly add a board list that is simply inaccurate. Beyond that, Wikipedia doesn't do "profiles" of board members unless they're actually notable, because that's irrelevant to the organisation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As I say, you may lay the choice of "key people" at 1955Dewayne's feet. I'd say chairman with the links to fuel mining needs to be included, as well as the notable members. If they have a BLP, they are notable. --Pete (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If it isn't meant to list the board members, what is the purpose of the section considering it is unique among similar types of articles? Most of these people, including the founder and the CEO, do not have articles of their own, and I can't find a single other article on an organisation that sees detailed profiles of board members as vaguely relevant. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Any researcher wanting to understand opposition to wind energy will sooner or later study this organization, which has played a key part in the area. A number of the board members have noted anti-wind history (but are not themselves particular noteworthy) or have come to the debate as objectors to local wind energy projects. Since the organisation strenuously claims not to be anti-wind, but instead a health promotion charity, this is noteworthy. Hiding this information deprives the researcher from information that is not controversial and can be found in numerous published sources. ArthurSkittle (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody wants to hide information about the organisation's stance or the positions of its board members. The question is how to present it within wikiguidelines. DW has deleted all mention of individual board members. I think that the chairman's links to fuel mining interests should be highlighted, but it's going a step too far to say that this applies to the organisation as a whole. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have zero problem with coverage of the interests of the board members, as long as it doesn't result in lengthy irrelevant resumes of board members such as it did before. This is an article on the Waubra Foundation, not a list of profiles of its board. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not normally list board members, let alone profile them, even if they are notable in their own right. Questions of whether their eminence confers respectability on the organisation or their other interests taint the organisation do not normally arise, because we just don't list them. We do often mention executives or leading spokespeople and sometimes major donors but that is irrespective of whether they are board members and will usually be in narrative concerning events or sections concerning finance. In rare cases, the issue of board membership may have become controversial; given reliable sources we might report that controversy in narrative (cf FIFA). But we do not assume that board members are key or even active participants in an organisation or that the organisation takes its character from them. NebY (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Institute of Public Affairs
• GetUp!
• Australian Fabian Society
• Centre for Independent Studies
• Infrastructure Partnerships Australia

Seems to be reasonably common. Some of these have a listing of the staff! Not that I think we need such a list here. My beef is with DW ignoring BRD, preferring to edit-war to get his way. --Pete (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm a woman - a female name and you still assume that everyone on this site is a dude. Well done. Secondly, none of those have the sort of list of biographical profiles you've tried to include here. Thirdly, talking about "BRD" is a laugh: you repeatedly edit-warred to try to remove well-sourced critical information from the article. I just stopped you getting away with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't tried to include any biographical information. As I've said several times now, you can lay the inclusion of guff and stuff at someone else's feet. My next step would have been to remove the material about opposition to local wind farms and so on, remove anyone non-notable and have a more concise article. I think the material about Mitchell's other interests belongs with him, rather than attempting to say that his interests affect the whole organisation. The whole point of WP:CRITICISM is that we put material where it is relevant so that all well-sourced points of view may be considered by the reader. Sorry if you feel offended by my slip on gender. No offence intended. Most Wikipedia editors are male - a lamentable imbalance leading to systemic bias - and it's unthinking habit to use the male gender in discussion. Not that screen-names are an unfailing guide to gender, mind. --Pete (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You said above the next thing you wanted to do to the article was to expand all the other "profiles". Your whole reason for wanting the inclusion of this section is so you can try to bury the fact that the founder and ongoing chairman of the group has very significant fossil fuel ties in a biographical section and that's not going to fly. There are a whole bunch of reliable sources raising issues with this in the context of Waubra itself; you're about the only one making the case that it's isolated to something in his biography. And for about the twelfth time, you're entirely welcome to get rid of the criticism section the day you don't try to do so by deleting or burying its entire contents. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

May I just say that I find your view of my motivations as out of touch with reality as my recent unfortunate choice of gender pronoun? I'm more amused than offended, however. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you do not think we need such a list here and have supported this by your own sampling above, in which only GetUp! lists board members. It appears we now have consensus on this. NebY (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. I see a former federal Minister and a judge on the list. I don't think we need a complete listing, but Mitchell deserves a mention through his fuel mining interests, and if notable people are involved, a link to their BLPs is justified. We certainly don't need to know every protest they've attended or any of the other junk. --Pete (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any indications that the former minister and the judge are actively involved? I'm not asking for reliable secondary sources right here and now, just any material that shows active involvement beyond attending board meetings. (Not that I've found anything that shows they do attend board meetings either, let alone whether they speak or snore at them.) Have they authored papers for the foundation? Have they spoken at meetings on behalf of the foundation? Have they been recorded as making substantial donations to the foundation?
On that last point, I've failed to locate any substantial financial information. They reported that in fye 30 June 2013, income was below $250k and they had no paid staff and three volunteers. Have you located anything more? NebY (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Attack article

The article now consists of little more than a WP:CRITICISM section. This needs attending to. --Pete (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No arguments here, but everything else apart from it was entirely reliant on primary sources or irrelevant to the topic. I assume someone, somewhere must have said non-critical things about Waubra in an independent, reliable source. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That's as may be, but looking at your recent edits, you've deleted pretty much everything but the criticism section. Looking at the discussion above, wikipolicy on this has been raised frequently, so you can hardly be ignorant. Am I to assume that your actions are deliberate? --Pete (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly stated that I have no problem with the criticism section disappearing as long as its content was neither deleted nor buried. This continues to stand, though obviously it becomes a lot more difficult to bury after the removal of content that was either entirely dependent upon primary sources or irrelevant to the Waubra Foundation. I look forward to the addition of much more relevant content backed up by reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could fix the mess you have created, then? --Pete (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't create a mess. I removed a bunch of material that shouldn't have been there in the first place. It strikes me that while you're great at coming up with excuses to delete material that doesn't fit your agenda, as well as to downplay existing material that doesn't fit your agenda, you're pretty shocking at actually doing the research to add new material that you actually want in the article. And that's not my problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You have created a situation where the article consists almost entirely of a criticism section, and you have edit-warred to maintain that. You keep talking about my "agenda". Whatever it is - and you are almost certainly wrong - personal agendas and opinions are immaterial here. What matters is following wikipolicy, and with policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF we can overcome any differences in opinion. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Independence

There's a very long thread above where Pete asserts that the Waubra Foundation has never asserted that it is independent. This is not true. The objectives of the organization are listed on their website and an older version is embedded in their constitution. Both commit the organization "to establish and maintain complete independence from government, industry and advocacy groups for or against wind turbines." This contrasts significantly with the fact that most of the directors of the Foundation are opponents to wind farms in their back yards. Many have been drivers of the anti-wind movement in Australia. Any article that glosses over this is omitting a very significant fact, and a key driver for the controversy surrounding this group. ArthurSkittle (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but you yourself admit that this is an objective. If you can find a source where WF states that it is independent, that would be something. --Pete (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

So how would you explain their independence? Something like "The majority of the Foundation's directors are objectors to local wind farms, several have established and/or held key roles in anti-wind organizations, several have addressed anti-wind meetings and several contribute to anti-wind websites such as stopthesethings.com and windturbinesyndrome.com. It has been widely noted that this is at odds with the organization's objectives (enshrined within their constitution) which commit it to maintain complete independence from advocacy groups against wind turbines."? (Note that the Chairman's statement of interest to the NHMRC presumably did claim that they were independent.) ArthurSkittle (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point, but I won't labour it. Perhaps you have a different view of "independence" to that used by most people? Do you possibly think it means "neutral" or "objective" or "unbiased"? Consider the recent case of the three Independents in Federal parliament. They were certainly independent, being controlled by neither Labor nor Coalition. But they held and stood by their opinions, which proved decisive in steering government to one side rather than the other. --Pete (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Arthur, you're getting drawn into a useless argument here. Skyring wants to draw you into an ideological argument that's irrelevant to the article: reliable sources back up what you want to say, and he can't produce reliable sources to the contrary, so he's trying to argue with them directly. Since this would be original research if it actually went in the article, it's a waste of your time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

DW, can we stick to discussing the subject, rather than other editors? You are quite wrong on my motivations, by the way, so it's best you drop it. --Pete (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DW for stopping going down that hole. I can't quite understand what point Pete is trying to make. ArthurSkittle (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The lack of independence section needs to be expanded. The shared PO BOX issues should be included and the info about Mitchell should be strengthened with the ABC source I had included. Please look at the source and discuss before deciding on whether to chop. 1955Dewayne (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

History / use of name

An earlier edit of mine was undone due as “we don't need editorial opinions inserted into the text.” My edit accurately reflected the additional source included. My edit was in fact removing an editorial opinion. Fact – not all townsfolk claim ill health, only some and both the new sources say this. Fact – there is no such condition as “Waubra Disease” and the source said this. My edit which added the word “some” and “(not recognised as an actual disease) – this was straight from the source. 1955Dewayne (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sickness claims

This is central to what this organisation does. My edits that were deleted used reliable secondary sources - ABC, guardian, Reneweconomy. I have put the section back minus the primary sources, South Australian EPA work safe etc, I accept that the “contribution to illness” section is better suited to other articles in Wikipedia.1955Dewayne (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lack of qualification

Likewise, I have amended this section following advice on sources. Not sure if worth retaining NHMRC complaint if nothing came of it. Happy to remove, will wait for feedback.1955Dewayne (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

While the article consists of a Criticism section and little else, it is by definition a NPOV violation. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There’s more negative than positive stuff but that’s where the secondary sources lead. Earlier edits had more on the board members and the organisation’s approach to advocacy etc. I was OK with this but it appears this was edited out due to use of primary sources. I had a look at other articles about groups and some have a primary source or two to kick off and provide context.1955Dewayne (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That's as may be. The point is the article as it stands is a policy violation. Either fix it up or I'll do it for you. --Pete (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I am completely okay with more being added to balance out the current contents of the "criticism" section, but we are limited by what is mentioned in reliable sources. If there are no reliable sources that take a softer line on Waubra, then perhaps the article needs deletion. However, the Australian Vaccination Network provides one good example of how to construct a relatively neutral article on an organisation most reliable sources are hostile towards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

AVN is a good comparison page1955Dewayne (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I certainly have issues with some of the recent edits, but if it moves us closer to a removal of the violation banner so be it(Gumsaint (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC))