Talk:Rob Johnson (Australian politician)

Added details of controversies in his ministerial responsibility
Any proposals to improve, or additional references please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisPer (talk • contribs) 10:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this page contravenes Wikipedia's terms of use for biographies of living persons. It is biased as it has a negative slant and is not balanced. Wikipedia stresses that pages must not be used to attack a person. This page is starkly different to pages of other members of the Western Australian parliament. Whitesaltblackpepper (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the more emotive language has been removed, the rest are statements of fact and backed by references. If you were to suggest changes below other than whole scale removal of content I'm sure we could all reach a consensus. 10:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The removal of one section was intended as a temporary measure until a more balanced replacement was made. I realise the current content is referenced, however it is very selective and is intended to smear the person in question. I have researched other pages of Western Australian politicians and there are either brief or balanced with both achievements and controversies. This page is not and seems to have been used by some individuals to attack the person in question. I have looked back at the history of this page and some positive comments, which were also referenced, about the person were removed and replaced with negative text. Surely this can be reinstated to make it more balanced? Whitesaltblackpepper (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Most are statements of fact, If you want to rewrite the section then you are free to do so, so long as it is balanced and not a complete removal. If you rewrite the section into something more acceptable (without removing referenced facts) and place it here on the talk page then other editors will review what has been written, and if all agree, edit it into the main article. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The current sources have very little positve to say about Johnson. If there are other sources that highlight his achievements instead of his controversies, please present them; at a glance I didn't notice a removal of significant amounts of positive coverage. We're not obliged to give equal time to both sides; per WP:NPOV we should cover different aspects in proportion to their prominence in the sources. Huon (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can find positive sources about him, please, go ahead and rebalance the article. There are good reasons his biography is different to other Liberal politicians. There is a brand new party created who got an MLC elected in their first year because of Mr Johnson's actions. These edits provide notable information about someone who calls on the public to elect him; they should have access to the facts.ChrisPer (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for your contributions. I have rebalanced the article, restoring some previous entries, and have kept the controversies. Wikipedia prides itself on being neutral, I think whatever our opinions are on politicians or other well-known public figures, it is important that our opinions and views on an individual aren't used to distort their biographies on Wikipedia. I have ensured this page now adheres to Wikipedia's policy on writing style Whitesaltblackpepper (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, so it IS possible to polish one of those! You are a skilled publicist my friend, and if you are the subject of this article I compliment you. I also note that you speak with familiarity of Wikipedia policies, yet you only have edit history relating to this page. Do you have any more usernames? Also quite entertaining to see what you 're-balanced' with. That little tit-for-tat about expenses is charming but probably going too far for encyclopedic work. ChrisPer (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the above, I withdraw the insinuation that you are using multiple usernames and that you have paid publicist skills. I undertake in future to edit the article to meet Wikipedia standards including NPOV.ChrisPer (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw what you did there! Your edit claiming to be correcting an error over the introduction of hoon laws actually removed the unflattering parts of the reference you had put in about 'Top ten politicians you can trust' (Which was NOT the correct title of the article). The full quote:
 * AND HERE IN WA...
 * 10. Rob Johnson
 * The Police Minister says some dumb things; in fact he says dumb things an awful lot. But he is real and what you see is what you get. I firmly believe that if more talent existed in the state line-up of the Government he wouldn't be on the front bench. But he is the kind of person who would be the best of local members, taking up causes and looking his constituents in the eye. And he was an effective shadow minister.

From Van Onselen: Politicians you can trust. Its a compliment indeed, and there was no need to sneak about making it more complimentary when the negatives are necessary to make the compliment true.

Also, if Mr Johnson didn't introduce the hoon laws which are so closely tied to his face in the public mind, what DID he do with the rest of those sixteen new pieces of legislation?ChrisPer (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)