Talk:Tim Smith (Australian politician)

Fixing issues flagged in May 2020

A notice was placed on this article indicating that there were problems with 1. possibility of original research and that 2. it reads like a resume. I think both these are legitimate problems and I would like to attempt to rectify. Mostly by using material from reliable sources, bringing in some balance, with positive and negative views of the subject. This parliamentarian has become a significant if controversial voice in Victoria politics and it would be good to have both his background and his thinking set out clearly.

@Playlet:@Ondewelle:@Blablubbs:@Nyook:@CLCStudent:@Peacemaker67:as you've edited this page and know some of the content already, it would be great to have your input.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The quoting of the terms Smith has used for Andrews are undue and unencyclopaedic, it would suffice to summarise them as pejorative and insulting, and that Smith painted Andrews as a "dictator". There is readily available information about his election which should be cited. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Yes, I'll find material on the election, and preselection which was highly controversial. I take your point about using the "dictator" quote.The Little Platoon (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Playlet:@Ondewelle:@Blablubbs:@Nyook:@CLCStudent:@Peacemaker67: Okay, I've removed the "resume-like" statements, and, for that matter, the criticisms that had no citations. I think every sentence that makes a fresh claim comes from a reliable source. So, unless there are any objections, I propose to remove the "Like resume" and "Original research" flags which were posted in May. From here I'm just planning to give the article a clearer structure. Thanks for taking a look! The Little Platoon (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Where there have been responses to Smith's statements (there have been quite a few from relevant people), they need to be located and added. Otherwise it comes across like a bunch of stuff Smith said, without any balance from people who have disagreed with him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Understood.The Little Platoon (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Okay, at this point there are three sections where there is a claim made by Smith: "dictator", "bats" and "black lives matter". All those have counterpoints now, either from a commentator, expert or politician. As the article expands, that principle will continue.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Please note that the above editors are comfortable with the introduction which you reverted. I have considered your arguments about notability and found that the policies apply to whether the subject should be given an article at all. Given that the subject is notable on account of him being a lawmaker in a state legislature, then the only question regarding a sentence here or there is whether it is from a good source and whether there is some kind of balance. I believe that this has been roughly achieved, as experienced editors here have noted. I continue to feel uncomfortable that you have targeted a number of articles that I have edited - when they are on the conservative side, but you have not undone a single edit of any article on the progressive side. It's becoming extremely hard to continue to assume your good faith in this. For the record, you have now done the bold edit, I have done the reversion, I believe after B and R, the next step next step is for you to discuss here.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

There are no editors to note, other than one who has disapproved. It's quite clearly you making comments several times. The particular content included in the article needs to be due. As I have now told you multiple times, if you can provide me with an article about someone "on the progressive side" that you have edited, I would be more than willing to edit it. I have edited articles about politicians of varying political parties. The bold edit was the addition of the content, not my reverting of that content. Always happy to discuss. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: as others have found in their interactions with you, editors such as @SPECIFICO: @Awilley: have found you can be belligerent, hopping on articles and reverting it back every day or two. Please stop. I note your bold cut. I will now be reverting it. Bring your concerns to the talk page. Thank you.The Little Platoon (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

So you're now admitting that I am reverting the edits, and not making a bold edit? You're attempting to violate Wikipedia:Canvassing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Forget attempting to violate WP:CANVASSING - pinging editors who have recently disagreed with someone to a discussion with which they have had nothing to do is an unambiguous violation, and exceptionally poor form to boot. I also note that Onetwothreeip is certainly correct in stating that WP:BRD requires that the new material not be re-added until consensus is formed (there is no such thing as a "bold revert"), and that The Little Platoon has now violated WP:3RR, which is a blockable offence.

Having said all that, I do think there might be a better way than blanket reverts here. There are definitely some tonal issues with The Little Platoon's additions (e.g. "Even Labor opponents have singled Smith out as 'highly committed to his cause'."), but there are also parts that seem fine to me at least. If I might suggest disentangling the parts that people have genuine issues with - this will also help others who may wish to contribute to this discussion. Frickeg (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I didn't remove everything that was initially added. I would like it if they brought each of their proposed additions to the talk page so that they could be considered thoroughly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Appropriate photograph.

The subject is a parliamentarian. I would like to add an image of the parliamentarian taking oath of office in parliament, as it seems relevant to the story of his career. Any objections?

Tim Smith MP being sworn in at the 58th Parliament on 23 Dec 2014

Yes, it's a poor quality photograph. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it's the quality of the image that's the problem.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Onetwothreeip. Not a good pic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

Change "an Australian politician" to "a former Australian politician" 121.200.7.110 (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 02:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

He is still an Australian politician. He resigned from the shadow cabinet, but he did not resign from his seat in parliament; as such, he remains a member of parliament. – numbermaniac 06:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021 (2)

Current edition forgot the word "to". Change "Smith attempted to use donuts create the number 800" to "Smith attempted to use donuts to create the number 800" Zeph.tech (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 05:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)