Talk:Joe Tripodi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| 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. | ||
 |
Joe Tripodi 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. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CrossCity opening Tripodi Iemma.jpg
Image:CrossCity opening Tripodi Iemma.jpg 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wollongong corruption paragraph
I have made some significant changes to the paragraph on this issue as follows:
- Removed the word "implicated" in the lead - Some dictionary definitions of "implicated: - "involved, usually in an icriminating manner", "to connect intimately or incriminatingly", "cuplably involved". The use of this word in the context sugested Tripodi was directly involved in corruption in Wollongong, not in the appointment of a "mate" to a job. Per WP:BLP, caution needs to be taken in the wording of claims such as this in biographical articles.
- Forced to sack Scimone from a "plush job" - this does not appear to be true. the source provided [1] does not say Scimone was sacked from his "plush job", only stood down (that is, suspended), and by the agency not Tripodi. If a reference can be found saying Tripodi has sacked Scimone, by all means put it in. Otherwise this appears to original research.
- Speculation of resignation over "improper involvement" - some care needs to be taken about using quotes in a manner that implies that a statement is definitively true, rather than alleged. It was alleged that Tripodi acted improperly over the appointment, and this should be mentioned in the article. But by quoting these two words without indicating where the phrase is sourced or in what context it is made, it suggests that improper involvement is a fact not a claim. If the phrase is sourced (for example, to a media outlet), the the sentence could be reowrded as "The Daily Telegraph speculated that "improper involvement"{{source}} by Tripodi might force his resignation .."
- Undue weight - the most minor point and a standing problem with political biographies is that every negative is covered in extensive detail in reliable sources but nothing else is. This tends to create the impression that the negatives are is the sum of the politician's career. This may or may not be true in Tripodi's case, but care should be taken to give proper weight to any allegations in the context of the overall piece. The Wollongong saga is sufficiently prominent (at least at present) to justify a paragraph or two here, but not much more.
Just some thoughts. I support some detail of this issue in the article but not to the point where it conflicts with the BLP warning at the top of this page. Any contrary views are welcome as always. Euryalus (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest it would perhaps be worthy nevertheless of including the fact that he was close personal friends with the person who was appointed, and perhaps even that departmental staff were aware of sereious sexual harassment allegations against him prior to the appointment? I agree that we need to ensure that undue weight shouldn't be placed upon this, although the way it currently leads I htink gives a slightly overly-rosy picture of what took place. Alternativly, maybe it would be worth pursuing a seperate entry for the scandal as was done with Orange Grove? Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree the friendship needs including otherwise the point of the allegation is unclear. I've added this to the paragraph. I'm not sure what you mean re Orange Grove, which does not have its own section. But if you think the "Minister" subheading is too long by all means break it up. I also don't intend that this sound rosy - it is not a rosy story. If there's alternative wording that doesn't go to the other extreme, put it forward and let's discuss.
-
- Down the track the Wollongong issue deserves an article on par with Orange Grove affair. Euryalus (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
