Talk:Carl Katter

POV material

I removed what I considered to be POV material, and my edits (including grammatical ones) were reverted. One POV phrase was "showing Australia that not all North Queenslanders, or indeed Katters, are against equality for all..." I also removed the long quote from Katter's video message. StAnselm (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Currently, the lead runs

Carl Robert Katter is a political advocate for many issues including LGBT rights, better education, public transport, sustainable development, access to housing, protection of our environment, a low carbon economy and better health services.

Now, the reference seems questionable: it's the Gay News Network citing an interview with SX. Anyway, Katter says that he has "no plans to become a candidate", but "he would be no single-issue candidate if he did decide to run later down the track". It then cites Katter saying "I have always championed better education, public transport, sustainable development, access to housing, protection of our environment, a low carbon economy and better health services." Now, there is no way we can translate that to the lead section of an article. Every politician or would-be politician has stances on a range of issues. Is there any other evidence that Katter is an advocate of public transport, for example, other than his say-so? This goes against WP:BLPPRIMARY, while Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Biographies of living persons reminds us to "pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources". So this laundry list needs to go - the reference does not say he is an advocate for these things. StAnselm (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Gay News Network" (GNN) is valid reference. SX news is a part of the GNN as are many newspapers around Australia. StAnselm mentioned in his edit that Carl Katter is "known" for his LGBT rights work but that StAnselm was not aware of anything else. I argue that encyclopaedic articles are not about what is always "known" but what is true. As the interview states this is what he has worked for and is "Currently" working for. I have added another reference from The AGE which perhaps is more reliable to StAnselm as it is not "gay". The fact Katter is a member of the Labor Party is evidence of his work and belief in more than just LGBTI issues. Being a member of a Party involves much more than just single issue. Lgbtoz (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for help at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carl Robert Katter as a political advocate. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:StAnselm I had a look at the clarification given at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Carl Robert Katter as a political advocate. Given their suggestion can we perhaps place that statement as ""Katter states he is an advocate for better education, public transport . . ." ? Would you be okay with this? Lgbtoz (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

But why would that go in the lead? You could hardly say that he is known for stating that. I had considered saying "best known for being a LGBT rights advocate" in the lead, but then I wondered whether he is, in fact, best known for being Bob Katter's brother. Neither statement could be included without a reference. StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay...understood. If I find a better reference to his other works I will let you know. Thanks for the assistance Lgbtoz (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Steve Dow

I'm afraid the Steve Dow quote needs to go. He doesn't have a wikipedia article, and so should be presumed to be non-notable, and so his opinion is no more significant than yours or mine, except when it is published in a significant source. Now, Telemachus Press is basically a vanity press, and so the book cited, Gay: The tenth anniversary collection is essentially self-published. The original edition was published by Common Ground Publishing, and was reviewed in the The Age, so that would be different. StAnselm (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Steve Dow quote is notable. Maybe you do not know of Dow, StAnselm, however his writing is well respected in the LGBTI community and is a notable commentator of that community. Just because there is no wikipedia article about him does not make him any less notable. The 'tenth anniversary collection' is a reprint of the first but with several new chapters. The 2nd edition was distributed via an epublication which is what many Authors now do - many books simply do not go to "print" in the old sense, this does not make them any less reliable? The new edition was reviewed in theSXnewspaper in Sydney and was reviewed on JOYFM Radio Melbourne. The quote in its 2nd formate (as amended by myself) is suitable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Your argument that Dow is not notable is not correct, and your argument that the e-dition of the book is less reliable than the printed edition is slightly strange and rather out of date - Ebooks are regularly referenced in Wikipedia. Lgbtoz (talk) 06:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would discuss things before you revert. For the third time today, I am going to WP:RSN. StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I did discuss it! see above...I discussed it as much as you did when you made the change Lgbtoz (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the consensus at WP:RSN is that the book is reliable to provide Dow's opinion, and I am happy to accept this. But we're still left with the issue of what his opinion is doing in the article in the first place. Do you have any secondary sources about this opinion, to demonstrate that it is notable or significant? StAnselm (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Vanity piece

User:LordFixit just tagged this article [1] a vanity piece. I don't think it fits that description. Can you please propose an edit that would correct the problem you see, LF? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject does not appear notable either and seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. The article contains mostly irrelevant information LordFixit (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add some. He easily passes WP:GNG. I've removed your PROD --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an abundantly sourced article on a well-known public figure. I find it very strange that one would reference WP:POLITICIAN in arguing to delete it, considering that he is not a politician - something which should be obvious if one had more than skim-read the article. The article passes WP:GNG by a mile, and nominating it for a PROD deletion when it would easily survive AFD is bizarre behaviour. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure how he meets WP:BIO. He is not elected to any office - he is basically known for being the half-brother of someone with who he disagrees. I don't think he meets WP:BASIC. LordFixit (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:GNG again. You keep trying to skate around the fact that he obviously passes that bar by a mile by bringing up wacky irrelevant claims in the hope that people commenting don't read the article (talking about not having been elected to any public office is spectacularly irrelevant for someone who has never run for any public office), and his obvious independent notability also renders WP:NOTINHERITED irrelevant here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

AFD

The article has been nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Katter. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

POV

I have reinstated parts of this article which were deleted by @Keepingthebastardshonest: and @139.216.137.42:. The parts of the article are well sourced and in my view relevant. I'm starting this discussion to see what issues the user/s have and how they can be resolved.

Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Katter&diff=692507142&oldid=692368692

– Hshook (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The parts of the article that you are removing are clearly being removed so that one section of the article focuses purely on one historical event whilst removing other political involvement. More information about this event is being added even though it adds no additional relevance to the point and, at the same time, other relevant political information is being removed. One must question why this is being done. In essence, non-POV is being removed and POV is being placed there instead. This looks entirely like a deliberate attempt to introduce bias against the subject of the article. The information that has been removed is in my view also relevant. The removal of that other information, which is itself sourced and cited, likewise appears to be done in a way that seeks to attack the character of the subject of the article even though the information fits well within the section in which it is located and helps lead into more current information, that being the political work of the subject. Wikipedia should offer non-biased information. In an article such as this, which focuses on negative as well as positive aspects of the subject, the reader receives a more balanced idea about the subject.

I have to question - would you be happy if the article simply said that Carl Katter is a gay man who once referred to the LNP as a party that protected paedophiles, and that it remained thus?

If you continue to have such an issue, I suggest that we take the matter further.

Twistedpiper (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, first off there's no need to threaten me, or accuse me of vandalism in the Teahouse. This is a discussion where we are all trying to get the best outcome. See WP:CIVIL.

I assume you're referring to the Political Career section. On reading this section before I made my edits, I felt that it was written in the most positive way possible - like it was a press release from the campaign, or something. I removed what I thought was irrelevant, and balanced out the parts I felt were biased. Using Carl Katter's facebook page, for example, is not a reliable source and is biased.

Labor policy should be placed in the Labor Party article and not on the page of one of their candidates.

The other angle I approached this from looked at what actually makes Carl Katter notable enough to warrant an article - this is his LGBT activism, not his political candidacy. Rationale for this is at WP:POLITICIAN - unelected candidates are not notable enough on their own. I don't think that the policies Carl believes in deserve more than a passing mention. I believe in marriage equality and renewable energy as well, but there's no Wikipedia article about me.

The whole article was referring to "Carl" rather than "Katter", as usual, which I also changed. – Hshook (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I question where you have in any way been threatened. As for accusing you of vandalism, if you're read the piece in the Teahouse, you'd see that it has been explained to me how vandalism is defined on Wikipedia.

If you persist in stripping this article down, I expect you to have the courtesy of doing so for all people standing for office. That other such articles exist state that there seems to be some interest purely on removing this page because of its subject.

You don't think that the work of the subject of the article warrant mention, but you do think that a tiff that the subject had warrants a large share of the article. This is unbalanced.

We clearly have differing opinions on what constitute good communicative language.

Twistedpiper (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)