Talk:Malcolm Roberts (politician)

Photo?
Do we have someone who can reach out to Mr Roberts and/or One Nation and get a freely-licensed photo? - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you tried sending them an email? Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues
has alleged that data cited to The Australian and possibly other RS are BLP vios. I am not sure what he means; perhaps he can elucidate here. Ratel (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It means that as Roberts is alive any assertion must meet the requirements of Biographies of living persons. WWGB (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I meant perhaps Orthogonal can elucidate why he sees the data as vios, not what the BLP policy is. Ratel (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Roberts then authored a 300,000-word polemic called CSIROh! (a play on the acronym CSIRO) that claimed global warming is UN-inspired hoax to introduce an “antihuman” socialist New World Order, aided by bankers and politicians. The essay was described as “conspiracist rubbish” by climate scientist David Karoly and “utterly stupid” by climate sceptic Andrew Bolt." is, to the best of my knowledge, completely untrue.
 * I might be wrong, but I read the report on the website and couldn't find any reference to "New World Order", for example. If Wikipedia faces a libel suit, saying that Wikipedia just restated something from a newspaper isn't a defence, hence the reason for the policy.
 * Without going into a statement by statement analysis of your edits, my general concern is this - most of the things you are writing are things that, while not expressly stating it, very strongly imply that he is insane or incompetent.
 * While there are obvious policy reasons why this is bad, consider also that Malcolm Roberts is a person. He has feelings. Being ridiculed and attacked in the press is such a bad feeling, and one that you can't really understand until you've gone through it yourself. Please let's not turn this into a fight, or an esoteric policy argument. You know the line between fair criticism and unfair ridicule, so please do the right thing. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Without going into a statement by statement analysis of your edits, my general concern is this - most of the things you are writing are things that, while not expressly stating it, very strongly imply that he is insane or incompetent.
 * While there are obvious policy reasons why this is bad, consider also that Malcolm Roberts is a person. He has feelings. Being ridiculed and attacked in the press is such a bad feeling, and one that you can't really understand until you've gone through it yourself. Please let's not turn this into a fight, or an esoteric policy argument. You know the line between fair criticism and unfair ridicule, so please do the right thing. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While there are obvious policy reasons why this is bad, consider also that Malcolm Roberts is a person. He has feelings. Being ridiculed and attacked in the press is such a bad feeling, and one that you can't really understand until you've gone through it yourself. Please let's not turn this into a fight, or an esoteric policy argument. You know the line between fair criticism and unfair ridicule, so please do the right thing. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , the CSIROh! document can be read here. It took me 10 seconds to find the string "people corrupting science and people using antihuman ideology to push global governance". "Global governance' is code for a New World Order. So it looks as if The Australian article is accurate, which is not surprising given that they have a legal department that would have carefully parsed the article before publication.


 * In addition, AFAIK the fact that someone has 'feelings' is not a good reason to delete well-sourced data from a BLP. I refer here to the comments of scientists on how they see his climate views. Perhaps you can show why and how these quotes, and their sources, fall foul of BLP? Thanks! Meanwhile, consider that our readers may very well wish to know how scientists view Roberts' claims, so that to redact them from the page is doing readers a violence of sorts. If you wish to rephrase to remove "New World Order" because you cannot find that phrase in CSIROh!, then yes, that's reasonable, although remember I inserted the quote with direct attribution to The Australian, so that you are bordering on OR if you start doing your own research and rewriting The Australian copy.


 * Moreover, please do not assume that I regard MR as insane or incompetent. I may be completely neutral and simply be adding well sourced data of how others view him. AGF, thank you. Ratel (talk) 06:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You should assume the assumption of good faith. I never said that you believed that MR was insane or incompetent, nor did I say that you were intentionally trying to make him look that way. All I said was that your edits do make him look that way, and I was pointing that out to you in case you weren't aware.


 * I agree with you that we should note that scientists disagree with his views. My issue is that you are not presenting the disagreement fairly. The article already stated that he did not accept the scientific consensus on climate change and provided some examples of scientists who he disagrees with. This makes sense. Collecting a list of insults by scientists (and, for that matter, a bunch of other random people like Andrew Bolt) crosses the line from providing the reader with useful information to an ad hominem attack. Orthogonal1 (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is that you think the well-referenced facts make him look bad. Probably you need to make your case to The Australian, rather than attempting to bowdlerise the Wikipedia article of the well-referenced facts - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The presentation of well referenced facts is relevant. For example, some newspapers reported that he only got 77 first preference votes. Wikipedia has decided not to include this information because it is misleading to the reader - because of the Senate voting system, most senators elected from a party ticket get an absurdly low number of first preference votes and we don't include this information for any of the other senators. Orthogonal1 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your fundamental claim - that such strong claims in The Australian would not have been fully editorially vetted as a RS for our purposes, particularly given Australian politicians' historical fondness and success with defamation claims - is deeply implausible. Continuing to remove well-sourced claims from the article on this basis would be tendentious and disruptive editing. Please desist - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't my fundamental claim. As I said in the above comment, a fact may be reliable and correct (e.g. MR's 77 first preference votes) but still inappropriate to include in the article. My fundamental concern is whether 's statements taken from the Australian are appropriate to include in the article. I'm not saying that The Australian is not an RS. Orthogonal1 (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

But, you are removing a large swathe of information that goes beyond concerns about scientists saying his views are wonky. This looks like a case of you simply not liking the data presented. Be specific about why you have deleted each sentence please. Ratel (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. So that we can discuss sensibly, let's do the sentences one by one. Which would you like me to start on? Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Start with why you removed his detailed history in mining. Ratel (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It could be summarised in one paragraph, which I had done a couple of weeks ago (see the lead paragraph for the "Career" section). It would potentially be more useful to have actual details of what he did while he was there, but at the moment what's there is largely redundant. The Coal and Allied section essentially says "He worked there and then didn't", and can be removed. The sentence "That was the end of Roberts' mining career" is misleading given that he has worked at more than the two mines listed. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You talk as if we need to be as brief as possible. We don't. No need to précis everything here, so I'm going to re-insert the details. Regarding the end of his mining career, do you have the name of any mining job he had after that point? Ratel (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

POV Statement 1
There is no reason to include the non-expert Andrew Bolt's opinion of Roberts' views. Even if there were, it is well documented that Roberts and Bolt have had personal disagreements, so we must take this into account when determining Bolt's credibility. And even if Bolt's opinion of the essay did have to go in, the verbatim insult is unnecessary and unprofessional. Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Australian used Bolt's opinion because, I presume, Bolt is a well known climate skeptic, and the inference we can draw is that if even he finds MR's climate views utterly stupid then we can assume that MR's views are pretty extreme. And they are, from what I can see. You cannot get much further from the science than to claim an international scientific conspiracy at the behest of bankers. Ratel (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The views definitely are extreme (to say the least). Andrew Bolt doesn't really represent all of the conservative and climate change denying groups, though. Alan Jones, for example, has interviewed MR and is the patron of the Galileo Movement. Breitbart wrote a piece praising MR. There are still many on the right who support MR and selecting only Andrew Bolt obscures this. Perhaps we can include quotes from his supporters as well? Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As a side note, it seems unfair to call Bolt a sceptic and Malcolm a denialist. I don't care which term gets used (they both have unwanted connotations), but it should probably be consistent. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many pages on the web defining the difference between sceptics and deniers, for example this. Roberts, while he poses as a skeptic, refuses to consider evidence, for example when Prof Brian Cox (physicist) referred to NASA when trying to explain AGW to him, he responded that NASA cannot be trusted. That smacks of denial. But there's no reason to exclude pro-MR quotes from the page, so go ahead. Ratel (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. If that's the case, I'd say that Bolt is a denialist too. Crikey seems to agree. I'll add some of the pro-MR quotes now. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

POV Statement 2
We don't say that any other people who have endorsed political candidates have "inserted himself" into elections. Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a POV statement but see no harm in rewording. His statement is a little stronger than endorsing a candidate.Doctorhawkes (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reworded. Ratel (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues using unreliable fringe source
User:Dave souza has reverted my edit, claiming that it is a BLP violation. I cannot see how this could be a BLP violation, and seeing as they have not posted an explanation on the talk page, I have decided to re-add the material. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The material in question, and in another section, is only cited to an unreliable fringe source – RSN May 2015 and June 2016. As the latter indicates, it's still potentially reliable for the opinions of authors, but whether their authors' opinions should be cited is a question of encyclopedic value, not the reliability of the source. The critical question is due weight; James Delingpole is a fringe conspiracy theorist with no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, and his connection to Breitbart means it's essentially a self-published unreliable source for his fringe views. At the very least, we'd need reliable secondary sources showing why Delingpole's views have any significance to biographical discussion of both Roberts and Cox. We should be aware that Delingpole was a blogger who rose to prominence by passing on something from another fringe blog, and was a columnist, not a journalist. However, anything like that is original research without a reliable secondary source dealing explicitly with Delingpole and Roberts. On the basis of WP:BLP, I'm removing these badly sourced paragraphs, and remind editors that this article is subject to WP:ARBCC sanctions: please don't edit war to reintroduce this badly sourced material. Other sources can be considered. . dave souza, talk 16:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Delingpole quote
I'm not sure it's valid to include Delingpole's views on Cox here. I was expecting you,, to include pro-MR quotes, not anti-MR-critic quotes. Delingpole's views on Cox belong (perhaps) on Cox's WP page, not here. Ratel (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But this isn't Delingpole's views on Cox; it's Delingpole's reaction to MR's meeting with Cox. Do you think that the meeting would be better covered in Cox's article, or MR's? Orthogonal1 (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's Delingpole's opinion of Cox, not his views of Roberts. What we need on the page are scientists who endorse Roberts' position, not vituperative right-wing journalists' opinions of the critics of MR. Get it? Ratel (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the Delingpole section entirely. Essentially, the main differences are that I have made the link between Cox, MR and Delingpole clearer and I have changed the focus of the criticism to the journalistic integrity of the program, thus avoiding the debate about whether non-scientists should be allowed to comment on science. Orthogonal1 (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with your description of Delingpole as the guy that broke the "scandal" of climategate. Climategate was a fizzer, no scandal was ever uncovered. In the context of this page, the key thing about Delingpole is that like Roberts, he believes AGW is a world-wide conspiracy involving banks, scientists and governments. This must be highlighted to explain his support for MR and his harsh criticism of Cox, a much admired scientist whom he calls a "crap scientist" (that's a verbatim quote from the source's link you are using). Ratel (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your descriptor just said that Delingpole thought that climate change was a conspiracy. My descriptor also gives that information, but provides context. If you want, we could remove the descriptor altogether, but your descriptor only told half a story. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your new descriptor is far too long. This page isn't about Delingpole, it's about Roberts. I appreciate you coming to the talk page this time, but you have to give me more than 19 minutes to respond to you. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've combined them. If you want to use someone as vituperative and insulting as Delingpole, we need proper context. Your link is a nasty, even vicious smear that should not be in an encyclopedia. Ratel (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how you can say that my extracts from Delingpole were insulting, whereas your Cubby quote wasn't. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What problems do you have with this, other than "overlong"? It's at least accurate. Ratel (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need an objection other than it being too long - if we included descriptors like that after every person in the article, it would be ridiculous. But if you really want another objection, I'll give you two.
 * 1. It's redundant. Anyone who believes in Climategate clearly believes in a conspiracy of scientists.
 * 2. The use of the term "supposed" violates MOS:ACCUSED. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just re-read your source. Breitbart is not a RS for everything, and I doubt whether, in this case, it is a RS for anything other than this arts grad's opinions. As such, if we want this person's opinions of the clash betw. MR and Cox on the page, sentence after sentence, the way you have it, we need to know exactly who he is. And you're obviously wrong about everyone who believes in the Climategate beat-up being a conspiracy theorist. Anyone would believe it, including me, if it were true. The WP page on Climategate makes it clear that there was no real scandal, so your use of the word is not possible. Suggest another phrasing here. Ratel (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And regarding MOS:ACCUSED, you need to read it more carefully. No phraseology is forbidden, but certain expressions should be used with caution, and I have used "supposed" advisedly in this case. Ratel (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As discussed above, it's not valid to include Delingpole's views on Cox or Roberts: the source is a BLP violation which gives undue weight to in-universe fringe ideas of climate change denial, passed on by a completely unqualified "interpreter of interpretations" recycling fringe blogs. . dave souza, talk 17:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ben Cubby
I can find no evidence whatsoever that Ben Cubby is a scientist. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Same with Delingpole ... weird huh? Fact that MR wrote to Cubby and challenged his reporting makes it fair play for the page. Ratel (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is nothing like Delingpole. Delingpole is a third party, and we are including his comments about the journalistic elements of the ABC program in the article. If you can remove all references to the scientific merit of MR's work from Cubby's quotes, leaving only comments about MR's journalism ability, then that would be fine. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You have twice reverted an opinion of Cubby's on MR's essay. Take note of the following:
 * MR sent the essay to Ben Cubby, a science/environment editor at one of Australia's leading newspapers, demanding a response. MR has sent many letters directly to Cubby, impugning his honesty and work (this could be expanded upon, now that I think of it)
 * Cubby responded to MR, and I am quoting that (sources at The Guardian, etc.). There are other sources too, e.g. Climate Change Conspiracy Theorist's Report "A Pile Of Horse Shit" Writes Environment Editor
 * Cubby's qualifications are not material here. As an Environment editor at a major organ, that's all the quals he needs to make critique of MR's theories. (BTW he probably has at least a BSc). Why on earth would we want to remove his opinion of the scientific worth of MR's essay, when that's the only thing we are interested in, and on which Cubby is qualified to comment as enviro-editor, also given that he was ASKED to comment on it by MR himself??
 * All in all, I can see no reason to exclude it from the page. On what WP-based grounds are you trying to exclude it? Ratel (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What grounds? I have several, but let's deal with them one at a time. Firstly:
 * From WP:QUOTE: "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful" Orthogonal1 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a wikipedia narrative on a science topic, it's a direct response to one person's challenge to, and criticism of, another person. The enc. is full of quotes on biographical pages that highlight direct exchanges between people. Neutrality is not the issue. If you feel it's UNDUE, then we can balance it by prefixing he quote with the fact that the CSIROh! document directly attacks Cubby: "Appendix 13 reveals that SMH environmental reporter Ben Cubby fails to report on corruption of climate science. His actions demonstrate his ignorance of science. His stories endorse claims that contradict empirical scientific evidence. They reveal an apparent lack of honest inquiry and desire to hold people accountable for corruption of climate science. This is not accurate news journalism. The ABC and SMH spread corruption of climate science. They have prevented an Australian public debate on climate science. (emph. mine). This make Cubby's responses to MR a valid part of his biography. You should ask yourself: "If I am going to write a biography of MR, am I going to include or exclude the interaction between MR and BC?" If you exclude it, you are leaving a hiatus in the story, and you are writing a poor biography. Ratel (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By all means, I'm fine with including the dispute, but like WP:QUOTE says, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of the more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject; be very careful".
 * It's clear that BC used rhetorical language to describe MR. It's also clear that MR used rhetorical language to describe BC. WP:QUOTE requires that we refrain from quoting altogether and describe the conflict in neutral terms. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine I'll get to it when I have time. Ratel (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

, you have included the quote with rhetorical language despite saying that you wouldn't, even though this clearly violates WP:QUOTE. Please remove it. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The version I put in, which you promptly deleted without discussion, is not in contravention of WP:QUOTE as I see it (note that WP:QUOTE is an unoffical guideline in any case). I removed the expletives and left an exact record of the two contrary opinions, which is more accurate than a mealy-mouthed rephrase. I'd welcome the input of others on this. Ratel (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not delete your version. I made some changes to it, but I largely kept it the same. You fully reverted my edit, even the trivial parts that shouldn't be considered contentious. You have quoted BC, yet you have summarised MR.
 * You have said that you want to get others' input. If so, you might consider opening a case at the WP:NPOV noticeboard. I hope we can work things out together, but if you think we're stuck, you might want to try that option. Orthogonal1 (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not realise that, just thought you'd reverted. Your edit summary did not explain your actions enough. Ratel (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, having looked at your edit more carefully, I think your version attempts to downplay a very serious argument between Roberts and a major journalist in Australia. Take it to the board or wait for other input here. Ratel (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And BTW I did not quote MR in full because of length issues. I did insert almost everything he said though. Ratel (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got to go now, but I'll get back to you when I can. Thanks for understanding. Orthogonal1 (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malcolm Roberts (politician). 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/20160803074259/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateResultsMenu-20499.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateResultsMenu-20499.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Intro - notable views?
so, the first para summarises his election->invalidity->election (I suppose the second one isn't quite a re-election since the first was ruled not to be). The second and third paras are just more of the same.

The election confusion is in the article body too. So I'd think the rest of the intro would summarise his notable views - which are very much odd enough and well-documented enough to have been noted at length.

So what would a suitable summary-of-Roberts intro look like? - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It would certainly make sense, but good luck trying to summarise that lot. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Given it a go - second para is now his previous career, third para is some political views, and particularly the climate change conspiracising he's literally internationally famous for. Have at it. I'm not in Australia, how big news was his support of repealing 18C? I got the impression from the UK that it was at least a bit notable, is it intro-worthy? Should other views be noted? - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Is that a notable Roberts view though? It's considerably more popular among the more mainstream hard right than many of his other positions, so I think of 18C, I think of its Liberal opponents and the IPA, not Roberts: I don't remember his own position getting much attention. It might warrant more and a clearer explanation of his attitude towards conspiracy theories more generally - the sovereign citizen stuff stands out to me as much more uniquely Roberts-notable, but I'm not sure if it's famous enough to go into the lede and he's such a complex character it's a bit difficult to do neutrally. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * yeah, might leave out 18C - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of Roberts at all, we probably need Roberts fans weighing in here - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Negative Article
The article as a whole seems weighted against him. Why mention servants? Articles should be free of bias. He asks for empirical evidence and not just models, I can't see the problem there. Nasa are not free from mistakes, the space shuttle killed a school teacher. Feinman was on the investigation that showed up NASA's shortcomings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:15E0:B29A:F122:DDB5 (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We say what reliable sources say. There is no rule saying that we have to suppress negative material or invent positive material to ensure balance. To the contrary, there is rule saying that we cannot do that: WP:FALSEBALANCE. Feynman and NASA are irrelevant, this article is about them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision.
Not a usual wiki editor but I have concerns about this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malcolm_Roberts_(politician)&oldid=1103380069 27.99.50.58 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nicely spotted. I've changed it back - thanks. - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Many pejorative claims in the opening section without any source
In the third paragraph of the opening section, there are numerous claims that are of a negative nature that have no source but are written as fact. Specifically, the passage: "...known for his climate change denial, and has been a proponent of fringe global warming conspiracy theories. Prior to his election to the Senate he founded the Galileo Movement to lobby against the Gillard government's carbon pricing legislation. He has also been associated with anti-globalism and opposition to the United Nations." There are no sources for these various claims, and they generally are phrased in a negative tone using terms such as "denial" "fringe" "anti-" "opposition".

Particular power users keep restoring these lines despite them lacking any sources whatsoever, and being in the biography of a living person.61.69.231.169 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The negative framing is in according with WP:FRINGE, so, no problem here. Sourcing is a different matter. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This article savages the Senator Roberts' reputation
Almost every time there is a "reverted edit" in the article edit history, it is restoring information that is unedifying or damages the reputation of Senator Roberts. Certain power users such as HiLo48 repeatedly revert changes that lessen the reputation savaging claims of the article. This handful of users ought not to revert the various edits to push their agenda, which is clearly antagonistic to the subject of this biography.202.168.57.16 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)