Talk:Andrew Landeryou

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Andrew Landeryou article.
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.	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)