Talk:City of Casey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 City of Casey 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
Assessment comments

Do you think that all councillors should get an article? Jeffklib 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think they are really important enough. There wouldn't be much to say on them in any case. --Crazycrazyduck 11:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to 'sack casey' blog

There have been a number of recent edits that have sort to include links to a blog expressing personal political views. I do not believe that these links are appropriate for an encyclopedia entry on the City of Casey and as such have removed the links. My edits have been reversed by the contributor concerned. I am in turn reinstating my edits and stand by them based on the following Wikipedia policies:

"Wikipedia content is not: 1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."

It is not my intention to spark a revert war. I appreciate the contributor's desire for exposure but must stress that, as I understand it, this is not the appropriate place. It is my understanding that this page is for verifiable, encyclopedic content on the City of Casey. Any thoughts?

--SRHamilton 06:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The edits continue. Can anyone help here?

--SRHamilton 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I am monitoring the page too to revert the edits. --Crazycrazyduck 22:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

--surely a link to community group is useful. If you dont find it useful, im sorry, however others might, and i feel it is apporperate to have on this page. It would not be approperate, as you say, to use the page for soap boxing, or advocacy, however, linking an external page that basically provides a summary of all newspaper articals about all councilors is. I appreciate your efforts on wikipedia, you are a real asset to the internet. however, this page, and the internet in general, loses all purpose if people like you continue to edit the good work of others.

-- 1:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The link is not useful for providing further factual information about the City of Casey; it is clearly one sided propaganda advocating the sacking of the council. The first line of the website tells us that. It does not provide a summary of news articles about all councillors, only articles that illustrate your point. A link to Star or the Leader would be much more suitable, if this was indeed your purpose. --Crazycrazyduck 06:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

--you people are defeating the purpose of the internet and wikipedia. surely a link under the external links section, is approperate. how can you justify having a link to the city of casey website, but not to one which provides futher infomation about councilors? The external link in question, was not made to over throw the enitre council as you so childishly claim, but to provide resedents of Casey with a fair and open fourm to express their concerns with the council. -- 6:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The City of Casey website is the official web presence of the council, the very body this page is designed to provide factual information on. That is why it is linked to. I think it is misleading to claim a blog as a "fair and open forum" when the blogger moderates all comments before they are displayed. Regardless though, we have explained why the link is inappropriate and I believe we are justified by wikipedia policy in removing it. I also hope you give some thought to Crazycrazyduck's suggestion. --SRHamilton 13:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

congrtulation u losers. u just killed the internet. just because u dont like the content, dosnt mean others dont find it usefull. shame. shame. shame.

Trolleykeys 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. This has nothing to do with liking the content of your blog. I refer you to point 11: Wikipedia policy: links to be avoided --SRHamilton 11:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

new link not blog. website dedicated to infomation about individual councilors. -thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.37.125 (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the link is still a personal website. In fact the content is the same as the blog you tried to link to previously. It doesn't satisfy a neutral point of view and has no encyclopedic value. Please do not continue to simply revert my removal of the link, please get consensus on this page first. I have made my position clear and oppose the inclusion of the link. --SRHamilton 12:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus for inclusion of link to 'sack casey' website

There has been a concerted effort to include in the article a link to the website Sack Casey, which was formerly the blog Sack Casey. I have objected to the inclusion of the link when it was a blog and continue to object to the new version of the site on the grounds that the website is not presenting a neutral point of view. The website appears to be a lobbying tool to advance the author's views toward Casey councilors with an affiliation with the Labor party. I have been accused to having some kind of agenda, a charge that I strongly refute. My interest here, as with any article I edit, is in the quality of the article (refer to my edit history) and I have no affiliation with or particular sympathy for any political party.

That said I ask that we try to reach consensus on whether or not this is an appropriate link to include in the article. Please indicate below whether you support or oppose the link. I would also ask that until we reach consensus we keep the link off the article, I am conscious of the danger of this turning into an edit war. --SRHamilton 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Website is a political lobbying tool and does not present a neutral point of view. --SRHamilton 08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
For - external link, provides summaries of all councillors and current issues regarding the council. --Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.235.233 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
"Provides summaries of all councillors (sic)" - No it doesn't. There is nothing on: Brian Hetherton, Colin Butler, Michael Farley, Janet Halsall, Lorraine Wreford, Mick Morland and Wayne Smith. That's 7 of 11 councilors not mentioned. Your "summaries" for the other four councilors include comments such as:
On Kevin Bradford - "One can only wonder what he would do to stay in power at the expence (sic) of Casey rate payers to act as the local puppet for the State labor party."
On Paul Richardson - "Paul Richardson seems to have the local council in his front pocket. After his recent back flip to please local labor councilors in regards to the advertisement of the CEO position, it becomes clear who is the council ‘boss’."
Why persist with misrepresenting your site for the sake linking to it from Wikipedia? You make no effort to be fair or balanced. You quote only from articles in the local papers that support your views on a handful of councilors.
If anyone is still in any doubt as to the purpose of your site they need only read this declaration on the main page: "This Internet site has been set up to draw the publics (sic) attention to the crisis that it currently faces: A Council that does not represent its citizens. A Council that is (sic) has been for too long involved in political arguments that should be left for the parliaments. The City of Casey ranks among the worst councils in the state, and constantly makes head lines in the local papers because of in house political fighting, mainly the fault of Deputy Major, Kevin Bradford. (caused by his political affiliation with the state Labor Government.) This website belongs to the non (sic) for profit group with the sole aim of making members of the city of casey accountable, and those who can not be, fired. -Chairman of the 'Sack casey Action Group'."
--SRHamilton 00:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - It is simply a blatant attack on certain councillors, and in no way neutral point of view. --Crazycrazyduck 21:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
for - I think yes, because its just the link. it is true that only certian councillors have profiles on the site, but perhaps there is a reason for that?

And if you have been reading any of the local papers, you would recoginise a lot of the writings, especially the first two you quote. perhaps being published in the paper holds some credibility.

I think, if that material was to be posted on wilipedia, it would be inapproperate, but i think the link to the web page is deffinetly with in the bounds of wiki policy.

I feel that the continuing deletion of the link is censorship at its very basic form. Sackcasey 11:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Nick, I've seen similar comments from you appear on the letter pages of the local papers. That doesn't give your views any more or less credibility though. As I'm sure you know, letters are opinion pieces (as are blogs). I strongly reject your claims of censorship and humbly point you to WP:EL for elucidation of wikipedia's policy on external links. --SRHamilton 10:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)