Talk:Matthew Guy

Lobster Cave

Tony Madafferi has been accused of murder Guy went to a dinner with him?

1. Please read WP:SIGN.

2. You want add that someone who is not the subject of this article was ACCUSED of murder. "Accused" does not mean guilty. Please read WP:BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Just saw this after I spoke to you on your page okay I acknowledge what you say.110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32

Cool. Now read WP:INDENT. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Smith backed Matthew Guy --110.22.50.32 (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)10.22.50.32--110.22.50.32 (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [[1]] Ryan Smith as the source states pledged support for Guy rather that he indicated that Guy was honest about what happened regarding the Lobster Cave diner. Upper house MP George Croznier supported Guy like Ryan Smith did.--110.22.50.32 (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32--~~

Basically what I wanted to add was that Smith backed Guy is that okay or not?--110.22.50.32 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)110.22.50.32--~~

Guy on intersection removals

[[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.22.50.32 (talk) 10:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Former Deputy Liberal Leader Peter Reith

Peter Reith should be refer to as the former deputy Liberal leader not as the former Howard Government Minister.122.106.83.10 (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Why? Both are correct, and he's better known as a minister. Frickeg (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The fact he is a former deputy leader takes precedence over a former minister. He should only be refer to as a former minister if it relates to the Howard Government which he was a minister of or a matter that relates to portfolio(s) that he held like him being the former Defence Minister in reference to the Children Overboard affair.

In general he should be refer to as the former deputy leader because that he is highest position he has achieved in his party.

Being a former minister does not make him anymore distinguishable to other former ministers and Reith has not been one since 2001.

Anyone can be a minister but not everyone can be leader or deputy leader of the party.

Being in a leadership position is more noticeable in history than being a minister as ministers are more dime in a dozen than a leader or a deputy leader. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is matter that Reith is better known as a minister. It just simply shows that journalists don't have memories that stretch as far back to when he was deputy leader and Wikipedia is not meant as a journalistic avenue.

It is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia is a reflection of history and as I said a deputy leader is more noticeable in history than a minister. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what the general consensus journalists has towards Wikipedia I however do know that the ABC does not take any credence from what it says in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does not really owe journalists any favours. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have edited to that very fact.49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Christian views

In background

Guy has said he was not ashamed to say he is a Christian.[4]

This is unnecessary, and reads as a political statement rather than a biographical statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.232.27 (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Matthew Guy.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Dag nabbit. Where will we find a new one? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 22:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Dog whistle politics

racist tough on crime Dog-whistle politics in parts of Melbourne, described as "brutal" and "dehumanising" by the African diaspora whom Guy targeted during the campaign.

I don't think the above is suitably NPOV for a BLP. The first source is no where near to being RS, and the second source, though stronger, fails verification for the most claims made. It does cite criticism from activists that called these policies dog whistle, but that's not enough for us to do so in wikivoice. Unbh (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Strong agree, especially with the verbiage that was being posed as fact in the article. A far better way of formatting the section would be (assuming some better sources could be found):

- Guy's tough on crime polity has been criticized as racist Dog-whistle politics in parts of Melbourne, and as "brutal" and "dehumanising" by the African diaspora whom Guy targeted during the campaign.

Skipple ☎ 13:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The first article is rubbish. The second is completely fine (primarily quoting the party's own report into the campaign failure!), even if the Wikipedia text clearly needs reworking. A search for "matthew guy" "african gangs" turns up a bunch of other good sources in respect of the campaign generally being seen as a disaster. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of section (2022 Victorian state election)

@Ecangola, @Macktheknifeau, & @anyone_else_who_is_interested: I have removed this section as I believe that it does not adhere to WP:NPOV standards. I say this as, firstly, the section entirely places undue weight on the negative portions of his campaign, isn't balanced, and isn't written in a neutral tone. Secondly, I feel as though that the section places too much weight on news that a) doesn't have much connection to Matthew Guy, and b) doesn't have much connection to Matthew Guy's 2022 election campaign. Lastly, the section doesn't have much encyclopaedic value, I would describe it as trivial information that didn't survival the 24HR news cycle. - GA Melbourne (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your deletions as there is no legitimate reason for them. The sections I added are reliably sourced and WP:WHATABOUTX regarding other elements of the campaign not being there is irrelevant to the existing text. Feel free to add your own additions from reliable sources about other parts of the campaign if you desire. I disagree that either of the sections are 'undue weight', searching google for 'Matthew Guy' the 5th result is his defence of the anti-vax advertising and searching "David Southwick" brings up two articles referencing the staffers being used and Guy's defence of them, making them both 'due weight'. The sections in question only add up to 3 lines of 109 words total and this campaign is the biggest moment in Guy's political career and these two incidents the biggest news stories from Guy so far, they are hardly "trivial". I don't think Wikipedia needs to be biased towards the Coalition by ignoring reliable sources by suggesting it breaches NPOV to mention them solely because the media views them as a negative for Guy. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I would prefer if we reached a consensus prior to reimplementing the content, I still think that this section contains info that isn't really solid enough for wikipedia therefore I shall request a third opinion. - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Why didn't you seek consensus prior to removing the content? Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BRD - GA Melbourne (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The content is reliably sourced, not just to reliable sources from Australia but from England even with the Guardian articles. undue weight At least the first paragraph is due; the Guardian article used is specifically about Guy. isn't written in a neutral tone That would be solved by rephrasing. trivial information that didn't survival the 24HR news cycle That's very doubtful considering international press covered the incidents. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Mind you it's an article written by The Guardian: Australian Edition by the Australian Associated Press. - GA Melbourne (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not really relevant where the article is from as there's no requirement for an article to have international sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)