Talk:Michael Sukkar

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... it is ridiculously absurd to claim that I have copied information direct from the source. There are big and clear differences between the paragraph on my page and on the Liberal Party's page. They are worded significantly differently. You cannot say putting in true information about someone is copyright, because that information belongs to no one, it is just a known fact. You cannot say that it is copyright that I have said Sukkar attended Deakin and Melbourne and completed a Bachelor of Law and Commerce and Masters of Law. Just because I said it and the Liberal Part said it does not mean it is copyright. You cannot copyright known facts about people. I think it is an absurd claim to say that by putting facts onto my wikipedia page that is also on another website is copyright, as they are facts and cannot be copyrighted. Stop with the absurdity. --Andreas11213 (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor JoshuaBonney
The edits being added by JoshuaBonney are entirely partisan and give rise to the strong suspicion Bonney (who appears to have created the page) is connected with the subject.

Reverting to the previous version. Garth M (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: Joshua Bonney appears to be this Joshua Bonney, who is Sukkar's spokesperson. He should be blocked from editing this page. Garth M (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of edits coming from people who appear to be close to the subject
Suspiciously large slabs of government media release style text are appearing, along with staggeringly POV stuff making assertions about "vindication" etc. Garth M (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Sukkar's housing schemes
The only source given is Sukkar himself in the Herald Sun. If it's to be included it needs a more neutral description. Garth M (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Update and re-organisation for 2020
First, a disclosure of where I sit. As I set out on my user page, I recently began work in the Federal Parliament. I get moved around a lot. And I've started fixing up little mistakes and problems I can see on lots of MPs pages. I've made edits and improvements to articles belonging to people of various political groupings. I've looked at the principles of WP, esp the stuff about biographies of living persons, and my view is if we can all stick to staying balanced and getting good sources, then lots of these articles will improve.

Second, about this article. Like a lot of current articles about Federal MPs, Green, Labor, Liberal and National, there's very little sense of what the parliamentarian in question is actually about. There's just a list of small controversies. I'd like to see it set out what the stages of the person's parliamentary service have been, what happened in each of the successive parliaments he served in, what initiatives he got behind. Then a big picture view of what his political outlook is. All the controversies should still be there, of course, but the context should be there too.

I think the best articles on parliamentarians, past and present, are the ones on Tanya Plibersek (super factual and clear), Marise Payne (though it needs some expansion on her views) and, probably the best one on a recent PM is Julia Gillard's. I feel we should be able to look at any wiki article on a serving parliamentarian and be able to get a sense of what that person is really about, what they are serious about, what they are trying to do.The Little Platoon (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - you've all contributed edits to this page, so thought I'd let you know what I'm trying to do above. Mostly it's about setting out the subjects thoughts and actions clearly. There's a lot missing at the moment. I've made a start today. Very much open to feedback.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's fine, as long as any contributions are encyclopedic and comply with WP:PROMO, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NPOV and the like. Also ensure to pay close attention to use of deprecated and perennial sources, to avoid tabloids and outlets declared fake-news. Beyond those obvious things, I would certainly like to see expansions on these articles. -- Tytrox (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for notifying me. Is there a reason you are leaving this on this particular article talk page? My concern is the risk of adding content that is promotional in nature, which is the kind of content that those who work for politicians add to these articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * only courtesy as you've edited this page before! I take your watchword about promotion. My goal is for those who want to know about this subject will find it here.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's good to hear. Who is your employer at parliament? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've declared my position with the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, if you're interested I'm sure you'll find it, after a very interesting conversation with and the consensus at the admin level was for me to proceed while observing the usual parameters. Right now, the thing I've noticed is you've spent time tracking down articles on people I've worked on from the conservative side, and made large deletions, without any kind of conversation beforehand on the talk page - like the one I invited you onto here. You simply made huge deletions. In my experience you're engaging in disruptive editing. And it's possible you're being partisan - I only say that because I've worked on several articles on people on the progressive side and you haven't touched those. But don't worry, I won't ask you who your employer is, or what your voting commitments are. What I will do is encourage us both to stick to the wiki guidelines here[].
 * It would be more accurate to say that I have reverted some content for reasons which I gave in edit summaries and I'm more than happy to discuss the editing of Australian political articles. I can assure you I've edited articles of Australian politicians from numerous political parties, and politicians outside Australia as well. I've found the noticeboard discussion you're referring to but I also ask who you're employed by since you brought it up in the message which you pinged me. You don't appear to have declared your potential or actual conflict of interest on that noticeboard. So just for transparent elaboration on that, what organisation do you currently work for? Fortunately, I think we agree on partisan editing on Wikipedia. I am against editors expressing their own political opinions, or being asked their opinions, or voting intentions. If there are any articles you think could use further attention either from myself or generally, I am happy to take up that offer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I can see you've pinged yourself, but I take it the message is for me. I'm afraid I feel in no way confident to further connect with you. You've just deleted about 150-200kb of content across articles I've worked on, only deciding to delete material on articles on those on the conservative side of politics. You do not not appear to have engaged in any good-faith conversation before hand with anyone on any of those pages. You have not attempted to work towards a consensus. You've simply made substantial cuts to content many other editors have contributed, you've done it summarily — and then asked who I work for. It really doesn't matter how many edits or pages you've done, you're not acting in a collaborative manner in my experience. I recommend a break is taken. The Little Platoon (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I must have copied the previous ping template and forgot to change the name of the editor. I can assure you I've added and removed content from articles about politicians of varying political parties, and articles on topics that don't relate to politics at all. I only ask who you work for because you brought up that you work "in the federal parliament" and, and I certainly do not mean to give any offence to that. As someone who edits political biographies on Wikipedia, I would have a natural interest in that.
 * I'm not sure if I've ever engaged in any conversation on the Tim Smith or Andrew Hastie articles, or the Michael Sukkar article before today, but I would be more than willing to do so if I was invited to, much like how I am conversing with you right now solely because of your invitation. If I had edited those articles more often, I probably would be in more of those discussions. Please don't feel that you need to engage in discussion on every article you edit, or before/after every edit you make, as this is certainly not necessary. Articles where I have engaged in significant discussion include Donald Trump, Fraser Anning, John Cain, Barry O'Sullivan, Emma Husar, David Leyonhjelm, Julian Castro and Stephen Jolly.
 * I think anyone who would recognise my username, especially among those who edit Australian political articles, would know that I have very much been a participant in discussions to find consensus, with 41% of my edits on Wikipedia being in article talk and user talk pages. I also did not ask who you worked for after making certain edits, I asked that after you responded to an earlier discussion comment of mine. Again, more than happy to discuss or to edit on articles with non-conservative subjects, and actively invite you to name such articles for me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Michael Sukkar HighRes.png