Talk:Ian Smith (Australian politician)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Volteer1 in topic How is this contentious Volteer1
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
How is this contentious Volteer1 edit
Some while back Volteer1 removed this which I shortly put back on his basis that it is contentious: "In June 1981 Smith played a major role in forcing Hamer to leave the premiership. When Jeff Kennett became premier in a 1992 landslide Smith was appointed Minister for Finance"
Why is it contentious that Smith had forced Hamer to leave as Premier. Surely this is based on fact that was highly documented at the time.
Also why is it contentious of Kennett winning a landslide and appointing Smith Finance Minister. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Have a read of WP:BLP. Specifically,
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
The reason being that we'd like to minimize unnecessary harm on living people and also try to ensure that Wikipedia isn't defaming anyone.
- I didn't mean that it was "controversial" in some general sense, I mean that looking at the page history, the material had already previously been challenged and edited out (e.g. [1]). As Ian Smith is a living person, unsourced material that people have been challenging shouldn't remain on his page. With the source you added, it's completely fine. My removal of it was everything to do with Wikipedia policy and nothing to do with the actual material itself, which I wasn't passing a judgement on and you're correct in saying I am not particularly familiar with. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)