Talk:John Sackar

Change the article?

@Gestrid: Can we please reach a consensus on making the most recently proposed changes to this page. The previous information was inaccurate. The current edits make changes to the information which makes this information now correct. I think that it is desirable for the page to only reflect information that is true and correct. Could you please advise about your thoughts on this? I hope we can reach a consensus. Nicholassaady (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)nicholassaadyNicholassaady (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You could just add {{Disputed}} to the top of the article. Just a suggestion. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just so you know, consensus isn't just one thing two editors agree on. Anyone who wishes to comment here can contribute to the consensus. I myself don't have any interest in the subject of the article and don't know much about them, so I'll leave the consensus up to those that comment here. I will leave a note at WikiProject Biography and their Politics and government subdivision about this discussion.

To anyone reading this, the above editor, who I believe (and I should've mentioned this earlier) has a conflict-of-interest wishes to change the article to something akin to this version.

— Gestrid (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've notified both pages of this discussion. Now, we'll wait a few days and see if a consensus forms or not. — Gestrid (talk) 07:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want my input (although I too don't know much about the subject), I would say that there are multiple issues with the article in general as it relies too much on primary resources. My suggestion is to rewrite the article with more sources not just remove large chunks of information. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 07:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jackninja5 I totally understand what you are saying, but in that case, it may be easier to just remove the page altogether? Otherwise, I only seek to remove the last section "Interests" and the section on the cases which were run because are incorrect and cannot be referenced to any sources. talk 22:14, 3 November 2016 (AEST)

Proposed changes to be made in accordance with the BLP policy

I am the subject of the page John Sackar. Some of the information on this page is incorrect and inaccurate. It violates the biographies of living persons policy because it is "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and should therefore "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

I request that this information be edited and removed, as specified below.

(1) I note that the first paragraph is inaccurate and should be changed to "who had a diverse and wide-ranging practise in Australia and often appeared in the courts of London and Brunei."

(2) The section "years as a barrister" is inaccurate and poorly sourced. The following should be removed "His Honour most notably appeared for the Australian Rugby League in the Super League litigation, for Biota in a case in relation to the drug Relenza, the Commonwealth in support of the claim against it by Pan Pharmaceuticals, the mother of Michael Hutchence in defamation proceedings against the Sun Herald, the Australian Rugby Union in relation to the sacking of Lote Tuqiri and for John Curtin House and Robert Hawke in the Centenary House Inquiries. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull read with Justice Sackar in his early years at the NSW Bar" because it is inaccurate and poorly sourced.

(3) The section "interests" contains material that is completely incorrect (these are not my interests) and poorly sourced. The whole section should be removed immediately.

I thank you for your assistance in resolving these inaccuracies for the betterment of this page and Wikipedia in general.

Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Made most of the changes as the sourcing was non-existent for much of it. I left in the interest in art and agriculture as that is sourced, but might remove it anyway unless anyone objects as it is pretty trivial. AIRcorn (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou AIRcorn (talk) For the sake of complete correctness of the page I ask the following minor edits as well:

(1) Change the second sentence of the first paragraph to "Justice Sackar was an Australian Queen's Counsel, who also often appeared in the Courts of London and Brunei."

(2) Add to the following to the "years as a barrister" section: "Sackar was called to the Middle Temple in London during 2006, with chambers at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square."

Thankyou again for your assistance.

Johnrs2016 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem with the first change, but will need a reliable source for the second. AIRcorn (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou again AIRcorn (talk).

(1) Add to the following to the "years as a barrister" section: "Sackar was called to the Middle Temple in London during 2006, with chambers at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square." The source is http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/2011/18.pdf.

(2) The second sentence of the first paragraph should be changed to "Sackar was an Australian Queen's Counsel".

(3) The word Selbourne in the "years as a barrister" section is correctly spelt "Selborne"

Johnrs2016 (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)johnrs2016Johnrs2016 (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC) 7 November 2016, 13:04 (AEST)

 Done AIRcorn (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Interests section

VRTS ticket # 2016110310027157

The subject of the article has requested that the "Interests" section be removed from the article. I have advised that the contents are both seemingly benign and sourced from a published interview, and are thus unlikely to be removed, but if they do not substantively add to the article perhaps they can be removed. - TheDaveRoss (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I got involved with this article when it was proposed for speedy deletion out of process, so am happy to keep an eye on things. Is there a particular reason that the subject feels that section should be removed? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)