Jump to content

Talk:Tony Windsor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political views

[edit]

Following an edit by 121.91.90.38 on 15 September 2010 at 15:21, the article's last sentence presently reads:

It was subsequently claimed in an article in a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Limited, that Windsor yielded a return about three times greater than other farmers who sold their properties to the same company in the previous 18 months.

I am questioning the inclusion of ownership of the newspaper and it's relevance to the article. I have no doubt that the content of the newspaper is relevant, but why does it matter that Rupert Murdoch, or any other media proprietor, is mentioned? I propose that the sentence be edited to read:

It was subsequently claimed in a newspaper article, that Windsor yielded a return about three times greater than other farmers who sold their properties to the same company in the previous 18 months.

Jherschel (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that mention of Murdoch is irrelevant. But just saying "a newspaper article" sounds a bit odd and evasive. I'd rather see:
The Australian subsequently claimed that Windsor yielded a return ...
Frickeg (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assasination hoax

[edit]

I have seen it appears I was the person who edited the page. I would like to say my account was hacked into and I am shocked and appauled by what has gone on.Enidblyton11 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Love the reply! Me thinks he protesteth too much. Reading the article... I get a little concerned that the vitroil Abbott has injected in to Australian politics may cause a Giffords-style assassination attempt. But what intruiges me is how the article says that the wikipedia contributor will now be investigated by the AFP... it doesn't even read as a death threat? The vandalism contribution falsely claims that Windsor was assassinated? Is that a death threat? And can any threat on wikipedia be taken seriously? Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "vitriol" supposedly introduced by Abbott has been overhyped for political reasons by the ALP and the independents and no more vitriolic than the language of a Keating for example - but this is not the place for that discussion. As for Enidblyton11, I tend to agree that it is not a threat but rather a silly hoax. Regardless of Enid's motives, blocking appears to be the best solution here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just heard one of the journalists at the NPC with Oakeshott ask him about the extent of vitriol that she hasn't seen in her 25 year career. But anyway, the article also says that they've been investigating one person for two months? It is a bit vague as to whether it's referring to wikipedia or the other incidents. Timeshift (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got the impression, following the edits, that the reason for the hoax was part of an exercise to attract attention from radio 2GB during the Ray Hadley show. I don't listen to the Ray Hadley show so I don't know, but I have heard, in the past, Hadley both complain and wax lyrical over Wikipedia. DDB (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The E-Assination of Tony Windsor has hit the news [1] which probably makes it worthy of a mention in the page, just a thought --Matt (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be very careful. The source (initially the Daily Telegraph, coming to us via it's relative the Hun) is one of those that itself waivers between being a useful news deliverer and the print version of a shock jock. My personal preference is to stop giving any more air to the vandal who caused this ruckus. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mountain is being made out of a molehill. I agree with HiLo48. Timeshift (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exploitative

[edit]

Windsor used minority government from '91 in NSW to achieve legislative purpose. That is exploitative. Kindly find a reason to deny it or leave it. DDB (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a subjective judgment. In which reference does that claim appear? Hack (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True about being subjective. Lucky I didn't make it up. I note at least one article (the first I looked at in references) substantiates it .. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/contradictions-define-independence-20100827-13vz6.html DDB (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a term that is based on a judgement, and that would manifestly breach WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, and shouldn't be used in this article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just because something is citeable, doesn't mean it should be included (why has there been a rise in this false assumption of late?). This is a neutral encyclopedia, therefore I would say the word "exploitatively" wouldn't appear much in this encyclopedia at all. Exploitative, in the context it was put in, is not a word to use. Timeshift (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is a bit hard to put into print. Hack (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I , unlike some editting here,. would interpret the WP guidelines as having WP editors neutrally form an article from RS notable material. If that material is judgemental then it still has a place in the article, as long as cited. 124.171.73.125 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tony Windsor. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Windsor&oldid=1200856176"