This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
))
I have altered the following sentence:
"He is a strong supporter of internet-censorship,[1] and is responsible for maintaining Australia's status as the only Western country without an "Adults Only" rating for video games, with the consequence that games with content unsuitable for children are also banned for use by adults,[2] despite overwhelming demand for such a rating."
Specifically, I changed "Australia's status as the only Western country without an "Adults Only" rating for video games" to "Australia's status as one of the few Western countries wihtout an "Adults Only" rating for video games". The reference that was provided (a newspaper article), does not state anywhere that Australia is the only Western country without an adult rating for video games. Also, the term 'Western country' is not even used, and is a questionable term: how is a Western country specifically defined? Of course, Australia would nonetheless fall under this category, but still. Anyway, so I altered the sentence slightly to at least maintain some degree of accuracy, but it is still not perfect. If someone can find a reference stating that Australia is the only Western country without an adults only rating for video games, then certainly go ahead and change it back. Cheers! 121.213.253.68 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the sentence "It therefore lacks not only an equivalent rating to the ESRB's "AO" (Adults Only) but also an equivalent to the ESRB's "Mature" (17+) rating[7]", as there is a mature restricted rating, just it is 15 not 17. The main issue is the inconsistency with the classification of films within Australia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.16.61 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to get a discussion going, Michael Atkinson has been recently villified again here. Sadly, certain users believe anyone who criticizes Atkinson's stance against gaming accept from the most meek, sterile terms goes against WP:BIO, so I've decided to start a discussion on the matter. While I admit, "Yahtzee" may not be the most politically correct person, but written properly, ZP can and should be used as a source. ShawnIsHere (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
It comes down to notability - we're trying to write an article about a person, not about a cultural phenomenon. What some game maker thinks of him is rather irrelevant. I'll explain by way of a second, much more notable pronouncement. In 2007, our then Prime Minister, effectively the head of state of a major US ally, made a claim that if Obama was elected it would be a victory for the terrorists. Had Howard been re-elected in 2007 (he in fact lost both government and his own seat), he would have had to work alongside Obama, so the fallout from this pronouncement could have gotten very interesting. However, from Wikipedia's perspective, it gets a single line in John Howard, and no mention at all in Barack Obama. I think this in general would be how such things would normally be handled.
I also don't know what you're trying to imply in calling me a "tame admin"... I'm sure this conversation can be concluded without people resorting to lame personal attacks on third parties. Would love to know what basis you build such a conclusion on, too, given it's very unlikely to be my contribs. Orderinchaos 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Timeshift and Orderinchaos. I saw that sentence about ZP "awarding" Atkinson some silly made-up title in the article yesterday and it seemed really irrelevant, out of place, and had undue weight – I was going to remove it myself. The subsequent revisions, although marginally more neutral, were equally awkward, and seem to be relying on a publication of questionable notability reporting a trivial off the cuff remark by another barely notable publication. --Canley (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I smile in Shawn's general direction :) Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
As much as I love Yahtzee, if we include every critisism of Atkinson ever made, this article will be the longest on Wikipedia. Keep it out.121.208.146.223 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This article is coat-racked to death. Almost half of it (and almost all of the reference section) is about the very marginal issue of game ratings, adding more isn't a good idea, taking out all that other superfluous stuff is an even better idea. Sambauers (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we find a reference besides gamepolitics.com? Hardly an unbiased detached-from-the-issue source, hardly WP:RS... Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Atkinson is somebody who for the censorship and banning of video games, by blocking something as simple as a MA18+ rating for no understandable reason. --Greatrobo76 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Can't we get this page semi'ed? The vandalism over the last few weeks is significant. --Merbabu (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
bout time 220.235.82.73 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I added a new paragraph about a recent internet-censorship controversy that's been going on. I included a quote from an advertiser editorial, realising that it isn't neutral, but thought that it captured the tone and severity of the article. Not sure if this is proper form -I'm not a regular contributor- but just letting you know in case anyone has a problem with it. I think the paragraph as a whole is necessary in so much as it sheds some more information on Atkinson's political life. The article as a whole is fairly short, and although it would be easy to fill it with a lot of gamer-related debate and R18+ material it's important to also examine some of the other facets of his political life, i.e. involvement in St. Clair redevelopment or being was sued for public defamation. It might come off as biased, but the point is that it actually happened and it deserves to feature in the article. PieMachine (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone add a section about Michael Atkinson's recent law that effects internet comments? [1][2][3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.187.169 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm just wondering whether it's worth introducing such a section, considering the wide range of criticism and controversy surrounding him. Having another section instead of including this kind of stuff under 'Parliamentary Career' would probably better define him as a politician while still allowing for the inclusion of things like the Stashed-Cash affair, which so far has no mention in the article. Examples include the 'Controversy, criticism and parody' section on the Bill O'Reilly page and the 'Controversial Incidents' section in the Rush Limbaugh article. A similar system could work here. PieMachine (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The arts | |||
---|---|---|---|
Human behavior | |||
Social systems | |||
Corporations | |||
Mass media | |||
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics |
| ||
Similar concepts |
Is it possible that instead of flat-out deleting additions that, although relevant, are not necessarily WP:NPOV, the senior contributors here could instead help edit these sections so they meet Wikipedia's standards? Obviously there's a lot of vandalism on this page, and that has to go. But I think that a lot of the new content that gets added is meant with good intentions, even if it isn't in the proper style, and it tends to be simply shouted down rather than refined. I'm aware that my previous contribution to the article (a section about recent internet censorship laws) was viewed as a WP:COATRACK (I honestly didn't know - I'm fairly new as a contributor), but the reaction was rather indicative of my point - yes, in it's present state it was unacceptable, but as suggested by Merbabu and Lear's Fool above, the incident did deserve inclusion, and the contribution could have been edited and refined by the more experienced contributors rather than removed entirely, even if it occurs off the main article to maintain neutrality and proper style until it meets the proper standard. I base this suggestion off my experience editing this article, but I'm sure there are others who have had a similar problem. PieMachine (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The Internet Commenting Controversy:
-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Cannon Defamation Suit
-- PieMachine (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
R18+ Rating Response/Other Related
-- PieMachine (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I cannot help but feel this is just a way for you to add a bunch of News Ltd propaganda to MA's talk page... but in the interests of WP:AGF I theoretically retract it. Timeshift (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Additions to this article are currently being drafted at Talk:Michael Atkinson/draft. Please feel free to join in! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note I have requested the "full protection" status of this page be reviewed. The article history does not appear to support a need for full protect status. NPOV issues should be resolved through collaborative editing rather than deletes and blocks; see WP:FLAG. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Atkinson became rather infamous as a blocker to the idea of introducing and R18+ rating for computer games in Australia. I just removed a chunk of information about that debate, which did not relate directly to Atkinson: Donama (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC) See also WP:COATRACK which has already been mentioned on this talkpage. It better articulates why I removed this paragraph. Donama (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Gamers 4 Croydon candidate Chris Prior found in a survey looking back (from 2010) at the past three years of game releases and found that 85% of MA15+ rated games were rated M (for 17 and older) by the USA’s ESRB. 50% were rated 18+ by the Europe’s PEGI, suggesting the current arrangements actually make it easier, and legal, for underage consumers to access material restricted to adults in other developed countries. Only about 2-3 games submitted per year for rating in Australia are banned out of dozens of international R rated titles, the rest being reduced to an M15 rating.[1]In an interview broadcast on australian ABC TV's Good Game show in late 2009, Atkinson referred to such comments as an "argument of convenience" for those with a vested interest in pushing games with extreme violence and, he repeatedly stated, "depraved sex" on Australian youth and the public. When pressed in interviews to give examples of "depraved sex" content, Atkinson invariable describes the content of Japanese Hentai games, despite the fact that neither Europe or America's ratings systems (with which the r18+ category would bring Australia into line with) allow for the sale of such material to consumers of any age, and no games in the Hentai category seem to appear on the unofficial List of banned video games in Australia, implying self-censorship by the Japanese producers of these titles, i.e. they are not trying to get these titles into Australia, Europe or the U.S. in the first place (the vast majority are never translated into English).[citation needed]
This very large section seems to stray very far away from a biography on Michael Atkinson. Should it be removed or vastly shortened? Timeshift (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Stavros did a fair thing by making the recent addition and something of that nature shoudl go on the page. Anyone have any other thoughts on this? Donama (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi all - I got word back from Ammarpad, and he suggested that due to the 'controversial' aspect of my edit, plus its my first time that it be best to add in what I wanted to say here , in the first place :=== Controversies === On the 19th of November 2017 the Sex Industry Network sent a message via twitter [2] showing Christmas decorations made in the likeness of female genitalia, Atkinson then replied to that message, and included female politicians Michelle Lensink, and Tammy Franks saying "So, @sexindustrynetw, @MicLensink & @TammyMLC, do these jolly japes extend to Eid al-Fitr & Vaisakhi, or are they confined to the Feast of the Nativity & Christians." this response saw a stunning rebuke by both female MPs both calling for his resignation [3] and with Franks saying that the interaction is symptomatic of a “pattern” of “bullying” behaviour directed by the Speaker, often towards female MPs.[4] [5] − Atkinson didn't resign, but instead undertook to stop using Twitter instead. [6]
Does anyone have any suggestions, or edits for this ? I would li9ke to htink I took a point of neutrality; but what do others think ? Stavros Gamer (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 13:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
– There are five names listed at the Michael Atkinson (disambiguation) page and no indication that the retired state (not national)-level political figure has had substantial notability within the wide-ranging English-speaking world outside of his South Australia constituency. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)