Talk:Gordon Nuttall

Multiple problems with the recent edit of this article

Dear Orderinchoas,

There are multiple problems with your recent edit of this article.

It says, "On 9 April 2010, the matter was mentioned in the Brisbane District Court where the Crown's representatives said they would not be ready to go to trial until early 2011." This is not up to date. The previous edit correctly says, "The matter is expected to go to trial on 27 September 2010."

You say, "Patel ... was under scrutiny as 90 of his patients had died ..."

What would be the average for a doctor or nurse? During my nursing career many more than 90 of my patients died. It tends to happen in that industry.

The problem is that there's a good chance the Supreme Court will throw out his conviction (be mindful of early 20th century Alabama re: fair trials & black people with the pseudonym "Dr Death") and if so Patel has every right to seek legal remedies.

With power comes resposibility. In order to relieve Wikipedia of possible litigation I think it's your duty to clean up the Jayant Patel article asap.

There are many, many more larger problems with the Gordon Nuttal page. I'll post them here asap.

Regards Cablehorn (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't deal with Jayant Patel as my field is politics, not medicine. I don't doubt there's a whole heap of issues over there, but there's more than enough to keep me busy over this side (on top of a degree, a TAFE course two non-profit board memberships, and being a care provider for a disabled parent). I suggest re that article calling attention to it at either the Australian noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard if there are identifiable issues. I would also call your attention to WP:LEGAL as the above is straying very close to it - I would assume you are entirely unaware of the provision hence why I'm making you aware of it now.

I can't speculate on what would be the "average" for the simple reason that I went straight from the source which you'd provided to get that information and its context, specifically this one. Offering entirely a personal opinion - it is entirely true, I believe, to say he was under scrutiny for that reason, as you'd expect anyone in that position to be (in fact, much of the surprise in Queensland appears to centre on the fact it didn't trigger scrutiny much earlier in the piece). The wording does not suggest or imply in any way that he caused all or even most of the deaths; indeed, the following section goes on to detail what he was convicted of, which was three counts. I would also suggest that the position of a nurse with relation to patients, and that of a director of surgery are quite different. There does not seem, from what I have read, any reasonable chance that they will throw out the conviction - it is more likely that the sentence will be reduced if his appeal succeeds, or increased if the Crown's does. So let's not speculate on that any further. The key standard is verifiability against reliable sources, and I was ultra-careful with that in this article. If the situation changes, so will the article - we've had a number of cases where people have been acquitted of things (Steven Chaytor comes to mind).

If you have any other issues with the article, feel free to raise them - although note I personally will not be around for much of the next few weeks. I suggest calling on WT:AUSPOL or WP:AWNB for more eyes on it as those are the main places that Australian editors on Wikipedia hang out. Orderinchaos 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the Nuttall and the Patel articles are far, far less to do with politics or medicine than they are to do with the law.

I could, using your argument, say I know little about banking so I can't edit the Nuttall article.

You feel free to rewrite the Nuttall article, but not the Patel article. I find your attitude interesting.

You argue it's OK because it's in the cite. Hmmmm. Everything you removed from the Nuttall article was cited.

I'll take from you're comments I'm free to edit the Nuttall article, without fear of an edit block.

At present it is inaccurate, cryptic and most importantly, unreadable.

Regards Cablehorn (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PS

You say,

"I would also suggest that the position of a nurse with relation to patients, and that of a director of surgery are quite different." Do you mean there's a difference between a doctor and a nurse ! ...............?

Professionally, yes. Legally, no. I'm not at all sure where you're going with that statement.

You, in all erudite sincerity, say, "There does not seem, from what I have read, any reasonable chance that they will throw out the conviction - it is more likely that the sentence will be reduced if his appeal succeeds, or increased if the Crown's does."

Have you read this [1] or this [2] both published by our ABC online.

Your faux intellectualism has kept me entertained for years. Keep it up. Cablehorn (talk) 03:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PPS

You say, "I'd note here, for reference, though, that no such "duty" exists - my field is politics ..."

"No such "duty" exists"! What, none anywhere? No ethical duty outside WP:RULES? No moral duty outside WP:RULES?

Cablehorn (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PPPS

You say, "As an admin here I'm expected to enforce policy, ...".

Are you saying this does not apply to you regarding WP:BLP and Jayant Patel?

I must stop reading your writing or this will go on for days.

Cablehorn (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cablehorn, you are campaigning. You don't like the fact you were caught out on your mission to denigrate Gordon Nuttall over a period of years, extending back to your first week on Wikipedia in May 2007, and contributing 303 edits out of your 859 article space edits to the topic (and 41 on related topic Vicky Darling), and 13 of your 28 talk page edits. Most of your edits sensationalised the topic, ignored what the reliable sources actually had to say, and exhibited undue weight. This can be amply seen by any neutral viewer who compares what was there prior to my edit, to what was there after it. The article was protected for a period of time earlier this year, and within one hour of it being unprotected, you were back to editing, suggesting you had been checking its status on a regular basis. I've dealt with political campaigners before on here, they usually have some obscure gripe with a particular politician (often a non-current one) which turns into an obsession about them. I'm also used to the distraction tactics they resort to when cornered. The 48 hour block I enacted was at the low end of the scale - if you are not able to get over the issue, your time here is likely to be very short, and it won't be me making that call. I have no interest in answering your questions as I no longer believe you are acting in good faith. Orderinchaos 13:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the info about 90 patients etc. It is too much extra detail for this bio (people can hit the Patel page). I will take a look at Patel's biography tonight when I have free time - it looks as if it needs some TLC. However we can't really report speculation that his conviction will be overturned - unless the source is reliable and we attribute it :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

...............................................

Orderinchaos, You say,

"Cablehorn, you are campaigning." - I'm not. I'm the only one who could be bothered with this article.

"... your mission to denigrate Gordon Nuttall over a period of years ..." - Simple libel / defamation.

"The article was protected for a period of time earlier this year, and within one hour of it being unprotected, you were back to editing, suggesting you had been checking its status on a regular basis." - I had asked for it to be unprotected a few hours before I was "back to editing".

"... your time here is likely to be very short ..." - Threat.

• Let's not lose sight where this started - here at 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• I honestly believe your admin status needs to be reviewed.-- Cablehorn (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

...............................................

Your avoidance of the points made regarding your editing history and in particular your intense focus on this subject is noted. Anyway, this discussion is old hat, given that the intended result of getting neutral eyes onto the page has now been accomplished. Orderinchaos 05:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gordon Nuttall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610213754/http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/documents/memberBio/NuttallGordon.htm to http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/documents/memberBio/NuttallGordon.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090703232929/http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/publications/documents/other/Nuttall.pdf to http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/publications/documents/other/Nuttall.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/hansard/documents/1998/980512ha.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/Hansard/documents/2011.pdf/2011_05_12_WEEKLY.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609024545/http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/96701001133482241700.pdf to http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/96701001133482241700.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)