Talk:Carlo Carli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Unless there is a good justification for Carlo Carli's friendships to be included in an encyclopedia article, it is just gossip and thus non-encyclopedic and not notable. Most of what I deleted was just personal attack, added by a self-confessed member of the opposing faction to Carli.Theusualsuspect 13:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's highly notable due to the looming election. Please disclose your interest in the subject. DarrenRay 14:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did a search and there's pages and pages of articles that make mention of friendships. Examples: Richard Brown (British politician), Kent Hughes, Kathleen O'Meara
You seem to be under a misapprehension about the meaning of "gossip" and "hearsay" because the friendship statement is neither--it cites references. If you bothered to read the article that I cited, you'd see that Carli was de Pieri's best man. That is not gossip. It's a referenced statement.
Furthermore, I don't see how stating any of these REFERENCED comments are personal attacks:
  • that someone is his friend (they are friends enough for Carli to be his best man)
  • that de Pieri was disappointed about not being preselected (he says himself in the footnoted interview he was "pissed off" and "devastated")
  • that de Pieri plans to run as an independent candidate (he says as much in the cited Age article)
  • that de Pieri criticised the Bracks Govt (he did; he says the govt has "lost the plot")
I think you're just fixated on reverting Darren and so you dismiss everything he writes as "hearsay", "gossip" or "personal attacks" when they clearly are not.
There's plenty of work that needs to be done on Aus political articles without wasting time reverting over a simple referenced statement of friendship. Unless you have an undisclosed agenda of your own? Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
...and all of this is perfectly relevant in the article about de Pieri. Expanding upon this in this article beyond "Carli is a friend of de Pieri" is delving well into the realm of crankery. Ambi 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Sarah Ewart is right. The de Pieri material is clearly relevant, and even interesting. It's one thing to be passionate about one's position (passion makes the world go round) but labelling one approach "crankery" is I think very unfortunate.

Not certain by what Ambi meant by this. I thought I'd look it up.

To some, crank means to turn the volume of your sound system up real loud "I love to crank up Metallica and watch the furniture fall apart!"

To others, crank refers to low purity methamphetamine usually produced in small laboratories in people's homes or available from mexican cartels.

crank n. A device for transmitting rotary motion, consisting of a handle or arm attached at right angles to a shaft. A clever turn of speech; a verbal conceit: quips and cranks. A peculiar or eccentric idea or action. Informal. A grouchy person. An eccentric person, especially one who is unduly zealous. Slang. Methamphetamine.

I'm not really sure what you mean by crankery Ambi but whatever you mean, I'm pretty sure it's not appropriate and not helpful to working on an article about Carlo Carli. I think we should just get on with that and to stop engaging in insults. DarrenRay 07:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling the de Pieri information "relevant" and "interesting" is irrelevant? The information is not notable and not encyclopedic.Theusualsuspect 08:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Also: what is the notability of Carli's travel to Scotland? This would be notable if it were unusual, or if the trip was for a particular purpose, had certain outcomes. As it is, it appears to be part of regular parliamentary travel, and thus is not notable. Constant attacks on people's "agenda" is attacking the person, not the contribution, and is a breech of wikiquette.

Theusualsuspect 11:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

His friendship with someone who will be politically high profile running against Labor is notable on any measure. I'm not sure what your problem is with with the travel, it is relevant to him, referenced. Where is the attack ? DarrenRay 22:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's an attempt to tenuously claim that because he's friends with someone that he must then share their political views. Just because Greg Wilton was friends with Kay Hull didn't make Wilton a secret National Party sympathiser. If you have a quote from Carli or about Carli, feel free to quote it, otherwise this has no place in this article. Ambi 03:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I am getting a little tired of anonymous/pseudonymous editors ascribing some foul intent on edits about subjects in which they have an interest. Let's talk about the edit itself.

I did not write anywhere that because de Pieri is a friend of the Parliamentary Secretary that he would share political views. In fact, I'm astonished such an inference could be drawn. Why would Carli share the views of someone running against the government?

Their friendship is undisputed, sourced and disclosed. Perhaps those with an interest in Carlo Carli here (not me - I've not met the man) could disclose their interest for the sake of an honest discussion. How about it, Ambi? DarrenRay 15:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never met the man either. I'm not involved in any way, shape or form with the Victorian ALP. I just object to biased writing from involved parties. Ambi 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
They are random lists of things that he has done. That is why there is no meaningful context - what was the reaction to his actions, what does this tell us - It isn't a chronological account.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh OK, that's a little different. I can take a stab at that. I disagree with Ambi's last comment. I have heard otherwise. DarrenRay 06:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren, the Wikipedia is not a place to place your dirt files on every single Victorian Labor politician. Place the stuff in context, please. --Robert Merkel 07:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Robert, there is no dirt. It is completely referenced and in context. Why reduce the information presented? By doing this the article is reduced to a stub. DarrenRay 07:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

Not all the time but when I see Ambi edits something it often seems to be deletion of good content. Screw that. This is for knowledge that's why I come here. If you don't want knowledge do not come. AChan 08:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alex's sentiments. For an SL hack, Carlo is actually quite interesting, the main issue here is sourcing. Does ever sentence need to be sourced? I don't see many articles like that. DarrenRay 08:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[1] Ambi seems to think she can just continually revert without making an effort to address what she says is slanted against Carli. I wish she'd just identify what she doesn't like so we can move on. DarrenRay 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is Carli through the eyes of a Unity supporter who strongly dislikes him. It features anything negative prominently, doesn't mention anything positive, and singles out for attention anything he's ever said that was critical of the ALP. It contains trivia (who cares about the Moreland Peace Group? Saying that he's anti-war may be appropriate), and massively blows out of proportion his friendship with Stefano de Pieri and the feed of press releases on his website. This is why so much of this article is junk and needs to go. Ambi 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ambi makes no argument against the huge information she deletes. She just attacks users and is removing knowledge. I will oppose this. Keep AChan 03:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not an explanation, or even a response in any way. If you're going to keep reverting me without explanation, then you'll end up forcing this to go to arbitration. Ambi 03:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All I see is a whole page of information that is about Carlo Carli. It does not seem to dislike him. If there's anything you dislike, delete one sentence not whole page. Go away. AChan 03:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I watch Ambi editing and do not like what I see sometimes. Why is this article deleted from whole page to almost nothing. Stop. This is crazy! AChan 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AChan, with the greatest respect you are being rather naive. The article is a collection of unfavourable information about Carli.
Sometimes, the Wikipedia is faced where a situation where a lengthy but hopelessly biased article is written, but there is nobody with the background knowledge and skill to clean it up available. In this situation there is no option to radically trim the article down to a short but at least WP:NPOV compliant stub. It would be preferable if a lengthy, NPOV-compliant article could be created, but that does not seem to be possible at the moment. --Robert Merkel 03:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How so? How is it unfavourable? If so please discuss. No more deletions with no reason. AChan 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To take an example, making a big deal out of the man's friendship with somebody running as an independant candidate and who has criticised Labor. It is written in such a way as to imply Carli is not a loyal member of the Labor Party. I know people who may end up running for Parliament for the Liberals. Are they automatically suspect because they know me, their pet chardonnay socialist? --Robert Merkel 03:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact, noted, and reflects the generally interesting situation involving de Pieri's candidacy. It's not a big deal but I think is interesting and worth noting. If that's the only problem, why delete everything else? DarrenRay 05:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)