Talk:Harold Scruby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV

Woah! About the only thing that I could see as keeping, unless we come up with references, is this:

Harold Scruby is the Chairman and CEO of the Pedestrian Council of Australia and Ausflag.

The Pedestrian Council of Australia ("PCA") campaigns for road safety in Australia but is particularly active in New South Wales and Victoria.

This bit is particularly bad:

The PCA is an organisation that is supposed to represent the rights of Australian pedestrians. However, many claim Harold Scruby has turned the PCA into a means of publicising his name. Scruby often proposes laws that are seen by many as anti-car or anti-motorist.

This privately-held company is funded generously by the RTA, with motorists' money. This is rightfully seen as unacceptable by many, particularly in relation to amounts spent on actual road safety.

Shermozle 04:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The subheading 'Pedestrian Council of Australia' really needs to be shifted to a separate wiki page.

The content may need rewording but is quite valid. Yes, it does need references.

--AtholM 06:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about PCA needing its own page, if it really is a one-man operation. Yes, content is perfectly valid but needs references. We can't have "Wikpedia thinks that..." to avoid POV.

Shermozle 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a little bit more info, and will do more as I have time. As a side effect of the added info, the POV of the parts edited so far are more neutral.

PCA is not quite a one-man operation. Almost, but not quite - there are several others who are not far off human Sockpuppets.  :-) I still think that it would be better to create a separate page, and probably start from scratch rather than copying any of the content from here. That way, if there are wiki entries for other members, they can point to the PCA page. --AtholM 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page blanking

Factual statements that reflect poorly on a person can still be NPOV if correctly stated. I really don't think that removing the factual statements and shrinking the article to almost nothing is productive.

Hence, I reverted the edit containing the blanking and then did another edit to cut a considerable quantity of problematic content, hopefully without removing any of the actual valid content. I expect that it still needs careful rewording in a number of places. I have left the NPOV tag for the time being. If someone else reads the whole article and considers the NPOV issue to be fixed, they're welcome to remove the tag. Otherwise, I'll have another look at it when I get around to it. --Athol Mullen 04:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• The changes made to this article by User:AtholM have re-introduced statements which are compromised by what Wikipedia users term 'weasel words'. For example: 'it has been suggested that the PCA is an astroturfing organisation'. I removed this earleir today and will do so again. Can I suggest that if users wish to have statements such as this in the article, then they cite reliable and accurate references. The references currently listed at the bottom of the page do not link to particular articles in these newspapers, but rather these newspapers' Wikipedia entries. These are therefore not accurate references for any information contained in the article. Furthermore, the inclusion of the information regarding the subject's accident is not relevant - it was found that the subject was not at fault - and I fail to see how this contributes to the article.

I will now make relevant changes. Please make sure any changes are clealy able to be supported with accurate references. Socratis57 06:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)