Talk:Richard Marles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Portal	Richard Marles is maintained by 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geelong.
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.

The final paragraph seems reasonable enough. What's the problem Ambi? DarrenRay 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's deliberately misleading. Marles was not known in the local community before the preselection challenge, and the local media absolutely savaged him for challenging O'Connor (a reasonably popular, if not brilliant, member), portraying him, whether fairly or unfairly, as the outsider muscling in on a safe seat to get into parliament. There's a serious feeling in Corio that it could go Liberal for the first time since Opperman retired. If you like, I'm sure I could come up with a myriad of choice quotes from the Advertiser and other press to back this up - or else you could stop casting astertions that he has a community support he doesn't have. Ambi 03:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Enough of the massive deletions Ambi. I don't why you do this but it is getting crazy. AChan 03:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You say you live in Canberra. How do you know all this? AChan 03:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Because I was born, raised and grew up in Geelong. I've still got quite a lot of family and friends there, and I visit a few times a year. It's hardly surprising that one might keep one's figure on the political pulse in one's hometown after one goes to university in another state. Ambi 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think if Ambi can come up with quotes from people who think Marles is not a "mover and shaker" or whatever that's perfectly OK. But what is the point of deleting the source? Let's be honest hear, there are editors of an anonymous/pseudonymous background who are not coming clean on their own prejudices and involvements. It's not the end of the world but I think we need to act with more courtesy please.

I do not think that a plain assertion (one I believe is false in any event) that Marles is unpopular is probably not worth including. From what I heard the Advertiser gave Marles a very good run. But if Ambi has an appropriate reference that indicates that he has no community support then let's look at it. But until then, give it a rest. And show some respect to Alex whose contributions have been great. Keep up the good work Alex, don't get bullied out of here. DarrenRay 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It'll come, in time, but in the meantime, this paragraph has to go. It's patently biased towards Marles ("reflecting his high profile and strong contacts in the community"), and singles out the opinion of the Geelong Business News (who I never heard of in the nearly two decades I spent in the city) above all else. I've got no objection to mentioning that he's a member of the Committee of Geelong though, as that's entirely factual and pertinent. That said, it does need to lose the editorialising about the committee's role - it a somewhat controversial reputation, and really needs its own article. Ambi 04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Has to go"? I wonder whether these expressions are meant in the way I'm taking them. I hope not. Anyway, I don't agree and look forward to your next contribution. You say it is misleading but then don't really offer anything to suggest how it could be. I think we're in a position to knock together a good article - free of bias - if you stop acting so unilaterally and aggressively. I would prefer the paragraph to stay. The publication Geelong Business News is pretty well known I think these days and has a website that seems to confirm its reputation as a serious publication. DarrenRay 04:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just explained why the article is misleading. "Reflecting his high profile and strong contacts in the community" is pure editorialising, as the description of the Committee for Geelong, "a group founded to promote the city's progress and prosperity". The quote from the Geelong Business News is a case of selective quoting - it's hardly representative, and seems like it's being selected to advance a viewpoint. The only thing in that paragraph which is indisputable is that he's a member of the Committee for Geelong. Ambi 04:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is hardly misleading. It is described as one publication's view. Lists of Mover and Shakers are inherently opinion but as long as it is listed as such I don't see the problem. Why don't you try re-writing it, that might be better than arguing about it. DarrenRay 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Once you remove the bits I've discussed above, there's really not much left to rewrite, apart from moving the mention of the Committee for Geelong into the rest of the article. Ambi 04:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)