Talk:Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Dmo.gif[edit]

Image:Dmo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns[edit]

I've just re-removed the material on three DMO executives. This seems to be an example of WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH to disparage the DMO's leadership and is a significant WP:BLP violation. The material was unacceptable as the citations don't support most of the claims made and the notability of the incidents, especially when discussed in isolation, is highly questionable. For instance, the reference for Norm Gray made no link between his departure and AIR5077 and the material on Jane Wolfe is original research and innuendo (eg, using a routine entry in the APS Gazette as a reference and putting the worst possible spin on it and bringing in what might have been a routine secondment to another agency as if there was something wrong with it, with only a routine Austender entry being used as a reference). The material on Gillian Marks appears to reflect the content of the reference, but probably fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main initial objection was the removal of ALL of the information, in particular the organisational structure stuff which is unrelated to BLP issues; I see you have left that stuff in the article this time, and so you have adressed my major concerns, and hence the majority of me is now happy.
You will notice that I had removed the unsubstantiated stuff, toned down some of the adjectives, and chose some more neutral nouns and verbs. That which I left behind was much more neutral and factual.
Regarding that which you re-removed, I have some sympathy with your pov, I possibly even share most of it. However, I'm aware that my pov is opinion, not necessarily fact, and hence I'm wary of censorship issues.
Regarding Norm-Gray-like-situations, my pesonal historic observation is that this sort of behaviour has become far too common from far too many people in senior public positions, and the media seem to allow it to occur without comment. I think at best it is "dubious", and it is against the spirit of APS ethical guidelines, (even if it is not against the "letter".)
I haven't seen "coatrack" or "synth" before. Yes, I think you are correct in your categorisation, but not for the reason "to disparage the DMO's leadership", or perhaps more accurately, not JUST for that reason. Never-the-less, I don't wholely agree with your analysis. (Note that also means I don't wholely disagree with it, either.)
Whatever the situation, if such cases are to be made by editors, then they need to be made more clearly and strongly and less ambiguously than the stuff you removed does. I think we agree on that point?
BTW: What's a "routine Austender entry"? [Aus Tender - Oz Gov tenders. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference to Ms Marks' secondment to another department was the entry in the Austender website where the DMO publicly reported this expenditure. All such government expenditure needs to be reported that way, so its not an indication of any notability, achievement, scandal, etc. Ditto the notice in the Gazette. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided cited references. The leadership issues are newsworthy. Agree that the non-cited stuff about Ash and Youngberry can go, but the rest is on the public recorded and was included in a non-POV way. I was careful to do that. It's one thing to uphold policy, it's another to make a value-judgement and exercise censorship. It was Jane Wolfe who was seconded, not Gillian Marks, by the way. It is a fact that she was sacked after she returned from secondment. Nothing else is implied or inferred. No scandal in being seconded. It's an interesting fact and, yes, it was reported in the Gazette of expenditure as a contract between the two organisations. Nothing controversial about that. I think the leadership of an organisation can be included in a Wikipedia entry about that organisation, and where that leadership might have some issues, that doesn't make it defamation. I think it shoul go back, as editted by Pdfpdf and intend to restore it, subject to discussion here over the next few days. 84.48.179.249 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Agree with Norm Gray - the link between the project and his departure was badly worded and perhaps should not have been included. I do think it is notworthy that a second-in-command leaves to work elsewhere in the inductry. Disagree with your pov on the Jane Wolfe part. The AUSTENDER reference confirms her secondment. The Gazettal confirms her sacking. The two followed each other also immediately. Given that Ms Wolfe held a very senior position and her position was created (according to new reports and official press statements) to implement reform, I think it is significant that she was seconded and then sacked. It's also significant when senior staff leave an organisation within 12 months. 84.48.179.249 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that any of the material should be included. Without scandal its trivia and gossip and none of the references hint at any notability - Wikipedia is not a DMO gossip website. Please note that Wikipedia's policy on covering living people (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) sets high standards for verifiability, notability and neutrality which must be adhered to. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I do believe it is notable that an organisation has significant leadership turnover, which is reported in the public domain, I concede that on balance it skews the article away from the organisation and towards individuals. As such, I can accept that it could easily adopt a tone of scandal, although that certainly wasn't my intent. I'll try to research this a bit and see if I can't find a way of including the issue without the focus on the individuals. Thanks, Nick, for the courteous way you dealt with this. 84.48.179.249 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current two sentences on Jane Wolfe's sacking appear appropriate as this story has now been reported in the Canberra Times and Australian Financial Review. I'm a bit skeptical about the claim that she's the highest-ranked public servant to have been sacked for under performance though - in 1999 the secretary of the Department of Defence was sacked because the Minister no longer had confidence in him (ref: [1]) which basically amounts to the same thing, and other secretaries have also been sacked in the past for poor performance or stuff-ups. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the end result is functionally identical, however, the two processes were quite different. If one wished to be pedantic, one could make a statement like that one and it would be true, even though, as you point out, it "basically amounts to the same thing".
I think a more useful line-of-approach is to consider what value the sentence is adding to this wikipedia article.
Also, the paragraph itself seems to be a bit of an "orphan". It is simply an independent statement of fact; on reading it, I am left with the feeling: "Yeah, so what?". There is nothing to explain/justify/motivate why it is appearing there and what it has to do with the rest of the sentences in that paragraph the "Leadership" section. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't locate the AFR article. Do you have a link to it? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came across "Defence sacking over performance", "Wednesday, 08 April 2009 | Canberra Times | By The Canberra Times", but now I can't relocate it, and I can't find it on the Canberra Times site either. Can anyone else find it? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the AFR story in the press clips at work (I think). I'll see if I can re-find it next week. The story was also reported in the Crikey newsletter, but I no longer have a subscription to it and I'm not sure if it's a reliable source anyway. I agree that context is needed, but none is unfortunately available - I'd have no problem at all with the material being removed as it's fairly unimportant. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry; I can look up a paper copy next week at work - I was hoping for an electronic copy. Yes, I noticed the Crickey story, and similarly wondered about the "reliable source" issue. And regarding inclusion/exclusion, I agree with the arguments on both sides, which currently puts me in the position of "sitting on the fence". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting debate going on here! I think the article, as a whole, needs a lot of work. It doesn't say much about the DMO. Also think the sacking of the GM needs to put into context. It's probably significant - especially if the Canberra Times claim is correct - but what's the impact on DMO? Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Defence Materiel Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Defence Materiel Organisation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capability_Acquisition_and_Sustainment_Group&oldid=1206536985"