Talk:Jenny Mikakos

Untitled
How is the article not neutral? DarrenRay 21:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It gives the basic details about her career, and then launches into a big negative paragraph, including the statement that it some trivial event was "when she first came to public attention", which is a bit rich. Methinks she first came to public attention when she got elected to parliament. Ambi 03:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the word 'came' to attention and replace with 'gained', does that work better? DarrenRay 04:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's better, but it's still bad. This selective quotation stuff is getting rather old. If I wrote Sang Nguyen in the style of this and Carlo Carli, you'd be screaming blue murder. Ambi 05:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by selective quotation? there isn't a quote in the article. DarrenRay 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Selective inclusion would perhaps be more accurate. Left figures receive a stub, plus a referenced list of anything negative they've ever done. Right figures, if you bother writing on them at all, receive an article that omits anything controversial they've ever done. This is not neutral writing. Ambi 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mikakos vs the medical profession
U|The Drover's Wife - This was a pretty dramatic disagreement between a taxation lawyer cum health minister, who displayed a massive ignorance of the ethics and rules of her ministerial area of responsibility, and Australia's doctors. I'm not the kind of guy who would normally go out of his way to attack a Labor politician, but to me this was an appalling display of incompetence and inflammatory behaviour. I'm happy to be convinced it doesn't belong. Go ahead and try. (Your Edit summary didn't achieve that end for me.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am completely in agreement about the conduct and definitely Team Dr Higgins, but it's still an epic case of undue weight. It's a one-or-two-day story (seems to have already stopped unless it picks up again) in a 21 year career and our article is generally very brief. We mention that she's health minister, we say nothing else whatsoever about her time as health minister, so including this (let alone giving it its own section!) is a really serious undue weight situation. If we had a reasonably-sized section talking about her time as health minister more generally, a sentence about this incident would be quite relevant. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's really the problem isn't it? There simply isn't enough content at all. As you might guess, I have a small connection to the medical profession (no, I'm not a doctor, but I know quite a few quite well) and I know that Mikakos is generally not highly regarded among doctors, again, even among those with leftist leanings. It may be difficult to find generous accolades about her time in that job. It seems weird to omit a stuffup simply because we don't have anything positive to say. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It needn't necessarily be even about her time as health minister (not much more over a year) but we need more than seven sentences on her entire 21-year political career before we start adding stories this small. I'm also not a Mikakos fan but if you only apply policies like WP:UNDUE on people you like our content goes to hell. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk)

I have added a controversy section. A 5000 signature petition with significant news coverage is in my few, not undue weight. In any event, I have kept the controversy entry short, a mere 6 lines as is appropriate for a small-medium sized story like this. If the article needs content added to the other sections, then that is a task that needs doing. it is not a justification for censoring a prominent news story from a wiki page from a prominent figure. The section is well-cited in accordance with the Living Persons policy. Wikiparlproject (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

A recent edit of the Jenny Mikakos article went beyond the 'minor edits & trimming' mentioned within the edit's comment. The edit deleted parts of the article that were most relevant to the controversy (e.g. the large number of signatures on a petition directed at the minister, & the minister's specific comments that led to the outcry). I am adding those specific aspects back into the article, as they are of primary relevance to the controversy; but will retain the editing & format changes made by the edit. It is of special importance that for living persons articles, that edits are both NPOV, and not apparently censorious. (The edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenny_Mikakos&diff=954489403&oldid=954441883 ) Wikiparlproject (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not seeking to censor and note the issues of undue weight raised by other editors above. Awbfiend (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * undue weight is an issue, but its not a reason to remove details from a section. Its relevant to the length of a section, which here is appropriate. Thanks Wikiparlproject (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)