User talk:Freespeech4adoptees

My understanding of wikipedia was that it intends for accurate and referenced material to be posted. I only post such material. I have no connections to any political party or any individual in politics. I do however believe in responsible free speech. I believe that if material is accurate and fully referenced to reliable sources it is by definition responsible. Most of my postings will be referenced to Government Reports (some bi-partisan reports) and as such I believe that they are from amongst the most credible and reliable sources. Such items should not be deleted by others for reasons that may appear to be motivated by personal politics. You may not agree with what people place on wikipedia - but if it is accurate and referenced correctly it should always be respected.

Jay Weatherill
As well as the edit summary I just left for the re-revert, I would also direct you to WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a place to vent your personal concerns. Timeshift (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is disappointing that a referenced fact from a bi-partisan standing committee cannot be placed on a wikipedia page without incuring such a reaction. The Standing Committee concerned was comprised of members from all major Australian polical parties. It's findings are not only in an offical report but recorded in Hansard. If material of this nature cannot be posted then wikipedia biographies run the risk of becoming nothing but fluff posted by groupies.


 * If I was able to reliably reference that Gillard and Obama are the devil, does that mean it's correct and suitable for inclusion? If I was able to reliably reference that Gillard took a dump last night, does that mean it's correct and suitable for inclusion? If there was an article where half of the content is detail about a tiny esoteric tiny part of their career, and written in a non-neutral way, and by an involved writer, does that mean it's correct and suitable for inclusion? If you wish to discuss ways your issue could be resolved, then the best way is to get a consensus discussion going at the talk page of the article. Nobody said that this material couldn't be posted, you've just chosen to interpret it that way. As for wikipedia being at risk of "fluff by groupies", which the Australian Parliament website has just under 1000 cross-references to, try and find me a link of the next best Weatherill article on the internet... find another website on the internet that has even a tenth of the Australian political history that wikipedia does. I've upheld wikipedia policies which, in an odd paradox, actually keeps the fluff out of articles... go figure. Timeshift (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, your first comment at the top is a bit concerning. I would re-remind you of WP:SOAPBOX, and that whilst government releases are reliable sources, they are also often primary sources and so often present a conflict. Each edit will be taken on merit, but please understand that it would be hard for an editor to base most to all of their edits on government releases without having constant issues with balance, neutrality or relevance. You can't go adding swathes of text on one tiny area of the subject, especially when the article is still a stub. Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting commentary. But not as interesting as it is defensive. My addition was a verifiable fact and a significant event in Mr Weatherill's political career which would be worthy of inclusion in any balanced biography. At present this page mentions only two things in his political career - his 2002 entry into office and his upcoming 2011 rise to Premier. Hardly a comprehensive entry and one that is entirely positive - not neutral at all. By your definition any addition of more than 1 sentence in length is therefore likely to qualify as "swathes of text". Similarly any event that is not flattering (regardless of truth) would risk being defined as "biased". A biography should not be a party political brochure and that is what this page risks becoming without greater balance in contributions.


 * Take it to the article talk page then as i've kept saying :) Timeshift (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)