![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The controversy about the Phillip Island rezoning continues to simmer. I reverted an edit with the latest bit from The Age, since it was obviously non-neutral ("used taxpayers money [ sic] ... prevented Minister Guy from having to tell the truth ..."). Should we have a paragraph here? We certainly do with similar figures (e.g. Geoff Shaw) but I think it will be difficult to find a neutral, unbiased statement. Maybe we could have "Guy was criticised for reversing a decision", etc. But, of course, he was criticised for the initial decision, too, so obviously he can't win. And governmental decisions are changed all the time. The Opposition, of course, will always call it a "backflip". St Anselm ( talk) 09:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This is blatantly political and should be reported. The Ombudsman inquired in to the department, not the Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.24.235 ( talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Article would be enhanced by a section on Plan Melbourne. Pro and cons. Covered widely with many secondary sources. 1955Dewayne ( talk) 08:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
He's the leader of the opposition of the second largest state of Australia, how come the whole article is on "controversies" WP:CSECTION.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The controversy about the Phillip Island rezoning continues to simmer. I reverted an edit with the latest bit from The Age, since it was obviously non-neutral ("used taxpayers money [ sic] ... prevented Minister Guy from having to tell the truth ..."). Should we have a paragraph here? We certainly do with similar figures (e.g. Geoff Shaw) but I think it will be difficult to find a neutral, unbiased statement. Maybe we could have "Guy was criticised for reversing a decision", etc. But, of course, he was criticised for the initial decision, too, so obviously he can't win. And governmental decisions are changed all the time. The Opposition, of course, will always call it a "backflip". St Anselm ( talk) 09:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This is blatantly political and should be reported. The Ombudsman inquired in to the department, not the Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.24.235 ( talk) 00:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Article would be enhanced by a section on Plan Melbourne. Pro and cons. Covered widely with many secondary sources. 1955Dewayne ( talk) 08:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
He's the leader of the opposition of the second largest state of Australia, how come the whole article is on "controversies" WP:CSECTION.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |