Talk:Tony Piccolo

Factional alignment
I added that Tony Piccolo was aligned with the Labor Left faction in 2010, and provided a citation to support this. User:The Drover's Wife then removed this referenced information, commenting that Piccolo is aligned with the Right faction. I would suggest that a more constructive approach would be to retain the original line, move it from the article's lead to the body text somewhere, and if he is indeed aligned with the Right, support this assertion with a new statement in the lead and a reference. Thoughts? --Danimations (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Search "Tony Piccolo" "right" on Google News and practically every article mentions this: the whole crux of the reshuffle was that Piccolo resigned to allow Malinauskas to take a right faction slot in the ministry, and then the deal regarding the extra spot happened where the left's Gago made way for Vlahos. You really, really shouldn't be adding this information to articles if you're not doing so much as a Google search first: in this case you added and are getting angry at the removal of information that was, according to about fifty articles in the mainstream press this week, definitively and demonstrably wrong. As I understand, the story was that he was originally a member of the left, but switched to the right in the deal that saw him originally promoted to Cabinet in January 2013, but claiming that he's still a member of the left is just flagrantly wrong and makes us look silly. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, User: The Drover's Wife. If you revisit the edit you deleted, you'll find that it did not state his current alignment- only that he was aligned with the Left at a specific time, namely in 2010. When I searched for terms "Piccolo", "Labor" and "faction" together, the returned results delivered his 2010 position. Thanks to your input, this position has now been placed in context. I'd prefer it if you didn't misinterpret (and subsequently misrepresent) my written words and make assumptions about my emotional state though. I was never angry at the deletion, merely surprised. Ultimately the article has been improved in response to this exchange and I hope the outcome is agreeable to you. --Danimations (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I admit my addition of Piccolo to the Labor Left category was premature, but my original copy edit was reasonable and accurate- just lacking in context. --Danimations (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It's completely misleading to include an outdated, contextless explanation of someone's faction, and the article is utterly better off without it: without the context that it was no longer the case (and was crucial in both his instalment in and departure from the ministry), it's just implying a falsehood. Plenty of Labor politicians change faction within their careers, and a mention of a six year old affilation, without the slightest evidence that it is still valid, is next to useless. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)