Talk:Gerry Hand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Portal	Gerry Hand 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 This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Asylum seekers section

It is now the least NPOV as it does what wikipedia states to do, the editorialising has been removed alltogether. Timeshift (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that it was editorialising (by Michael Brissenden or myself), but have no objection at all to its removal in the interests of balance. Adding the "straw argument" section seemed a tiny bit pointy though, I have to say.--Canley (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it was pointy. The argument is always strawmanned away from the fact that Howard left boats floating out at sea. The resulting article mentions Labor's contribution without editorialising (and yes, Brissenden/ABC does editorialise like any other). Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course they do, and I don't think this was such a case. I don't think mentioning that Hand's speech was used in such a way is a tacit endorsement of such use, nor is any editorial opinion offered. Anyway, I agree with you that the article is probably better without that bit, I suppose it's like the old "Controversy" POV-bait sections in political articles, eh? Look, I think we're on the same boat here (sorry, poor choice of words) - to be honest my inclusion of that sentence was more out of a desperate search for any material on Hand to include in the article (which appeared because it was topical at the time), rather than to put across a point-of-view of which I would personally vehemently disagree, and if it comes across that way it was certainly inadvertent. --Canley (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)