Talk:Lidia Argondizzo

Concern
This article is a concern. It is completely unsourced and seems unencyclopedic in tone. StephenBengHo 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The facts you "disputed" were straight from Argondizzo's parliamentary biography, freely accessible from the parliamentary site. Feel free to come back when you've got a legitimate complaint. Ambi 12:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The full extent of the biographical material is here:

Hon. Lidia Argondizzo Party: Australian Labor Party House: Legislative Council Portfolio/Position: Government Whip (Council) Electorate: Templestowe Electorate Office Address: 128 Ayr Street, Doncaster 3108 Phone: (03) 9850 8600 Fax: (03) 9850 8611 Email: lidia.argondizzo@parliament.vic.gov.au Hon. Lidia Argondizzo

Current Committees: Outer Suburban/Interface Services and Development Cttee since 2004. Library Cttee since 2003. LC Standing Orders Cttee since 2003. Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Cttee since 2003. Length of Service to date: 1129 days Personal: Born 13 October 1960, Italy. Married, 2 step-children. Birthplace: Italy Education and Qualifications: Preston Girls High School. BBus & MBA (RMIT). JP. Parliamentary Service: Elected MLC for Templestowe November 2002. Parliamentary Party Positions: Government Whip in LC since December 2002. Party Positions: Secretary Croxton ALP Branch and a member of various policy committees. Administrative Committee Conference Delegate. Previous Occupation: Health Department Victoria 1984-88. Electorate Officer for Giovanni Sgro MLC 1988-89. Office Manager for Senator Barney Cooney 1989-2002. Local Government Service: Councillor 1987-1993, Mayor 1989-90, City of Northcote. Interests: reading, walking, travel.

StephenBengHo 13:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

wealth and socialist left membership
The fact that she is apparently a moderately wealthy woman, and that she's a member of Labor's left, are relevant and publicly-disclosed pieces of information as far as I can see. We mention that Malcolm Turnbull has a pile of dough, so why not a Labor backbencher if it's true? So they should go in. If the pecuniary interest disclosure has been misinterpreted, then by all means remove that reference to it. --Robert Merkel 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Robert, thanks for the rewrite, it's much better now. --2006BC 04:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ambi makes change all the time. Except for one link which is good, mostly the changes are not good and I see from history that this goes on for a long time. Please no more. I have made a change that includes Ambi's useful addition. The rest is not useful and is too informal for an article. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lidia_Argondizzo&diff=43545327&oldid=43541507] Please stop AChan 05:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One of Ambi's points is that mentioning the fact that she's in the socialist left faction isn't sufficiently important to be in the first paragraph. To me, that sounds reasonable; if I may be blunt for a moment, the only people more concerned about the internal machinations of the Labor Party are the hard-right factional warriors of the Liberal Party who are gradually driving anybody with a shred of actual liberalism out of it...--Robert Merkel 05:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems very important to the ALP members from what I see about it in the news. I think listing the affiliation of the politician in the first paragraph makes sense, ALP, faction etc. Do the Liberals have factions too? They don't seem listed in MP articles here. I wold like to see them. AChan 05:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, they have factions, they're just (sometimes) less formalised and less publicly known. In Victoria, the Liberals were divided into the Kroger and the Kennett factions, if I recall correctly.  In New South Wales, infamous YL president Alex Hawke is apparently a member of the ugly hard right (my description, not theirs).  Then in the West a large swathe of the Party was apparently controlled by Noel Crichton-Brown.  --Robert Merkel 06:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain
Ambi, why is her membership of a particular faction, and apparent moderate (though hardly exceptional) wealth not notable?

Darren Ray and others, why his Ms. Argondizzo's factional membership so important that it belongs in the first bloody paragraph, and why is her activity in her local electorate irrelevant? --Robert Merkel 06:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with her faction being mentioned, and to my knowledge I haven't been removing it from the article - just the lead. I object to the paragraph about her apparent moderate wealth because it's written in a pejorative way. A reword and I'd gladly reconsider. Ambi 04:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand she is worth $10 million. Not moderate. DarrenRay 05:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Her faction membership is vital, it's the only reason she is in Parliament. The activity in her electorate reference seems like a putdown. I think we can live without it. DarrenRay 07:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are factions in every political organization in the world. But you're making it out as the Labor Party is somehow unique in this, and other political parties, notably the conservative side of politics, are made up of men and women who carefully evaluate every issue on its merits and don't have power blocs.  --Robert Merkel 11:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't intend it as a pejorative, I just think it's crucial information. You're right that most parties have factions, few have them as formalised as the ALP, except maybe the LDP in Japan. The Liberals also have factions, but they seem to be much less formal, with no faction membership lists, rules, newsletters and other idicia of organisation. I am a member of the ALP so I'm not putting up this information as a bad thing, I think it's interesting. Sad I know. DarrenRay 11:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any good reason for the changes Ambi is making here. Perhap she can explain what the problem is. DarrenRay 09:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you reverting now? I incorporated almost all of yours into the latest compromise version. I removed a reference that wasn't a reference (it linked to a picture of the guy, and it really isn't in dispute that Frank Argondizzo is human), explained the situation in the Legislative Council (e.g. why she was having to seek preselection) so it makes sense to someone who doesn't already know about the reforms and noted that Carlo Furletti was one of the most senior opposition figures to lose his seat. What on earth is disputable about those edits? I think you're just reverting my edits because they're my edits. As for the rest, I removed the bit about her being the wealthiest person in the parliament because it's written in a pejorative manner - as I've said before, if you want it to go in, I'll happily reconsider if you take the anti-Argondizzo slant out of it, and apart from that, I just removed the faction from the lead, as it is already in the article. Methinks that it is you who needs to be justifying your reversions here. Ambi 03:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All must explain reversions. I do so now. Linking to photograph is good reference. Opinion about Carlo Furletti not interesting, just opinion. I do not remove any edit because of the person. I look at it and judge. Suggest the same for you. AChan 03:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not an explanation. Why is the photograph a good reference when it doesn't actually support anything that's disputed? It's hardly opinion about Furletti - he was one of the most senior figures to lose his seat (along with Wilson and Leigh), and I don't really see what this has to do with your dislike of Argondizzo. And you haven't even bothered to respond to the rest of my explanation. Ambi 03:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't like or dislike Argondizzo. You wrote an article according to the history that seems to indicate you know her well. I don't have a problem with that, I think it should include as much balanced information as possible.
 * 2) The photograph is a link that establishes Argondizzo's involvement in the union and I hardly think is a big deal.
 * 3) Her factional membership is not in dispute
 * 4) I don't agree that Furletti was a big loss to the Liberals, if that's what you mean.
 * 5) We are not really far apart on the content of this article anyway so why play so tough over it? And please be nice to Alex he's a nice guy and you've upset him over what seems to be nothing. Presumably you don't want to discourage editors and while you don't care what others think I think you ought to consider the consequences of scaring away people who can make a contribution to what is a community project. DarrenRay 04:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) When I wrote the article, I'd actually never heard of Argondizzo. I was working my way through the members of the Legislative Council alphabetically, and this article was the product of my research at the time. 2) I'm not disputing that Frank Argondizzo was a unionist, nor is anyone else to my knowledge, so I'm not sure why it needs a cite. A more helpful source might be something detailing what happened with her defection to the Pledge Left and such (which was new to me) (While we're on the topic, any chance of getting an article on the Pledge Left?). 3) I know her factional membership is not in dispute - it just doesn't belong in the lead. 4) I'm not saying that Furletti was a big loss to the Liberals - he was a useless toad. He was, however, one of the most senior Liberals to lose his seat, and I think that warrants a minor mention in the article. 5) While Alex may be a nice guy and I'm happy to work with him, he's going to need to control himself if he's going to last long on Wikipedia. Reverting other people's contributions en masse without explanation is a fine way of getting oneself banned. Ambi 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll have no pejorative references to toads, thankyou very much. How would you like it if I refered to someone as a useless anthropoid? Could we agree to agree that references to the factional affiliations of Labor MPs should not appear in the opening paragraphs of biographical articles? Contrary to what some people seem to think, this is not a matter of great interest to most readers, and just feeds the tendency to use these articles as vehicles for factional slagging matches. Intelligent Mr Toad 09:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lidia Argondizzo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051218155203/http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au:80/handbook/searchresult.cfm?menuid=1&memberId=1600 to http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/handbook/searchresult.cfm?menuid=1&memberId=1600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Lidia Argondizzo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051218155203/http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/handbook/searchresult.cfm?menuid=1&memberId=1600 to http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/handbook/searchresult.cfm?menuid=1&memberId=1600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)