Talk:Anthony Albanese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag
Portal
 Anthony Albanese is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

[edit] Editing dispute

This edit contains weasel words and has WP:WEIGHT issues Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on this one - it is a direct quote from a former senior Labor frontbencher, and is essential to ensure NPOV. Anthony Albanese is a very controversial figure, and it is only fair that his Wiki reflects this.Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
How is it essential to ensure NPOV? You have no idea what WP:NPOV is do you? I am weary about your contributions and where your inspiration comes from. Timeshift (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you mean 'wary' not 'weary', might I draw your attention to WP:AGF. Secondly, the NPOV guidelines state demonstate that all points of view be considered. The article as it currently stands only lists the postive aspscts of Anthony Albanese and his involvment in politics. The fact that he has a reputation, well documented in the media, for engaging in hard line factional warfare, and is considered one of the national leaders of the Hard Left, is somehting you can not ignore and whitewash out of this article. It was a very significant criticism of him, and is something that should be included. You are welcome to use sources to justify his actions if you wish, but this point of view should be considered Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
State precisely where it says all POV be considered. It says all 'significant' points of view be considered. Your tone in that post is most certainly demonstrating a complete lack of WP:NPOV. What is currently there is an overview of his career, your addition is certainly not of the same breadth/depth, it has major WP:WEIGHT issues. Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The view of Laurie Fergeson certainly is significant! Furthermore, whilst I welcome any constructive additions or changes to what I inserted, the fact remains that you are censoring the site and removing any negative material. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No that is your view. See my previous post. Major WP:WEIGHT issues. Timeshift (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It is somebody's opinion as quoted possibly out of context in a broadsheet daily a number of months ago. I should note that such a low bar would in fact allow considerable speculation on Liberal figures and/or their media allies (Alex Hawke in particular would merit half a book on this basis), which judging from the singularly one-sided nature of your edits to date, would probably not meet with your approval. Orderinchaos 22:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

being a "direct quote from a former senior Labor frontbencher" does not make it fact, it's still an expression of opinion. Just because a politician says something in public does not make it fact. I've noticed Auspoliticsbuff is showing potential bias towards Liberal partyMichellecrisp (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not the point. The point is that he has come under criticism and is a controversial figure. I use as precedent the fact that David Clarke page there are similar numerous quotes of criticism from other politicians. This is no different. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You have found one quote of considered powerbroker, yet there are several references from different people on David Clarke's page about his controversial nature. Different sources strengthen reliability of a claim Michellecrisp (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Laurie Fergeson has a long standing involvment in the Labor Party. He was a state member from 1984-1990, and a federal member from 1990 to now. he has held many seniour party positions, and his weight is considerably more than backbenchers like those quoted in the David Clarke article. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

well if you can back it up with other people's views it would be more credible. I'm not going to debate here trying to lessen the controversial nature of Clarke. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What, you want me to line up a list of sources of everyone who's attacked Albanese? Perhaps start up a new subheading entitled 'criticism'? Because I easily can if that's what you wantAuspoliticsbuff (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest reading WP:NOT - chiefly among them, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". Also WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP, which practically preclude the entire proposal raised above. I would strongly suggest that if you wish to have your edits accepted by the community (and this is an editing community) that edit-warring over polemics tends to result in hardened resolve by both sides to maintain mutually inferior versions of articles and stunts development, as has been seen many other times in many other places. It does not help the encyclopaedia and it is much better to try and justify proposed changes. If they can't be justified, they probably shouldn't be made. Orderinchaos 22:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The last suggestion wasn't intended to be taken seriously... I am just struggling to accept how criticism of Mr. Albanese's factional dealings is something taht shouldn't be included hereAuspoliticsbuff (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection on?

Mistake? Please turn it off. Timeshift (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It was clearly a deliberate response to the low-level edit war, but it's been a month now, so I've unprotected. JPD (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)