Talk:Fiona Phillips (politician)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Newystats in topic Balance banner

Balance banner

edit

I inserted it because of edit-warring by a new editor who appears to have only one target, with a partisan intention. The second paragraph still contains inaccuracies (the Indigenous group referred to is incorrect), and has made a stub article severely unbalanced. It is partly irrelevant in referring to the actions of another politician—possibely in an attempt to smear Ms Phillips. Tony (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I agree, so I removed the material. The Mundine stuff could be mentioned if contextualised properly. The Watson stuff is clearly POV. Frickeg (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The material has been re-added. Does this count as edit-warring yet? I would say that the material about Greg Watson's behaviour in 1982 isn't relevant, and the during election sentence needs the context that Warren Mundine was her opposing candidate. I propose deleting the Greg Watson sentence, and changing the 2nd sentence to ...
"In the 2019 Gilmore campaign Phillips called her opponent, local Yuin man Warren Mundine  a "phony" and then told him to "go back to where you came from"[6]

I propose changing 'Yuin Elder' to 'Yuin man' since I can't find any source with a google search of Warren Mundine "Yuin elder" that names Mundine as an elder. Newystats (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I heard a rumour his mob was originally from way inland (can't recall the name); and that Mundine was not being straight about this, to bolster his wobbly claim to be a "local" in Gilmore. Where are the reliable references? If Indigenous issues are to be part of the article, why aren't other issues, to provide balance? Tony (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Even properly sourced, it still needs context. This article is far from alone, but it's never a good idea for the entirety of an article to be "here are the basic biographical facts about this person, and here is a single minor controversy they've been involved in, in the same number of words". Frickeg (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
The paragraph (along with the banner) has again been removed by an anonymous user. Given the discussion above, I'm happy to leave it as it. Newystats (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply