Jump to content

Talk:David Feeney

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

Untitled

[edit]

Have addressed notability issues I think. DarrenRay 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Feeney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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 09:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Federal Election

[edit]

There's a very distinct pro-ALP anti-Greens slant in this section that needs tidying up. Garth M (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why he switched to the House of Representatives

[edit]

David Feeney made his switch from the Senate to the House of Representatives after he was placed on the unwinnable spot on the Senate ticket.

Therefore his transfer to the Lower House was an act of political survival.

Until recently this fact wasn't in the article.

So I tried rectifying this by putting this very fact.

Then it got removed by The Drover's Wife saying it was an unreferenced claim. It is not a claim. It is an established fact and I find it hard to believe that The Drover's Wife did not know that.

I then put that back in and then the fact of Feeney not living in Batman when he was preselected from an AdelaideNow article which also states his said place on the Senate ticket and hence his move to the House of Representatives.

For some reason this still wasn't good enough for The Drover's Wife who removed everything I written including the AdelaideNow article.

I have now put all of that back in with addition of three sources.

I have no idea what The Drover's Wife's problem is but if this is a personal attack to me of some kind then I like to ask him to leave me alone.49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care if you think something is an "established fact". You still need to add a source for each specific claim. If you don't add a source, it gets removed. This is basic Wikipedia policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the source you add must support the claim you add. The AdelaideNow article did not state that he was put on an unwinnable position in the Labor ticket. The other two articles are paywalled and it's clear from the link you added (which is the paywall link, not the article link you'd have if you had actually accessed the article) that you haven't read them either. Feeney is a very easy man to find negative content about, but that doesn't exempt him from Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of issues with your wording and sourcing. Firstly, Feeney was not "placed on the unwinnable spot on the Senate ticket"—he was preselected in third position, which was not "unwinnable" as he was also third on the 2007 Senate ticket (when he won). The statement about an "act of political survival" is your opinion phrased in a very non-neutral way (as is asserting that this claim is an "established fact"). It's true that Feeney did not live in the electorate when he was preselected, but this is pretty common, it's phrased like there's something wrong with it, and the only reference is an opinion column in the Herald Sun. This was controversial so could be included if you had more (referenced) nuance and context such as why Feeney was preselected over say a local woman.
Almost all of your sources are pointing to the subscription pages of paywalled websites (which I accessed and found the link to the claims somewhat questionable), and you should reference the specific claims (i.e. sentences) rather than dumping four references at the end. Get rid of the hyperbolic phrasing and asides like "despite not living in the electorate" and use some verifiable references and sure, that could be included: for example, here is a reference in which Feeney admits he is switching to the lower house because his Senate prospects are "very, very marginal". --Canley (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly it would be constructive if you put in the PerthNow article yourself. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I thought the whole addition was poor, that's why I didn't slap the reference I suggested on. That's not too bad though, I've reworded it slightly, I know Atkins used the phrase "death spot" but that's still a bit hyperbolic, and it should be mentioned that Feeney was also third in 2007. --Canley (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia doesn't care if you think something is an "established fact"."

I don't think it was an established fact. I know it was. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Feeney&oldid=1257749465"