Talk:Mark Brindal

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.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

LGBTQ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ studiesLGBTQ studies

Australia

	Australia portal Mark Brindal is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Excessive quote

Is there a way we can boil down the 307 word quote (compare to 217 words in the rest of the article) from PollBludger.com (a blog?) to something that is more encyclopedic? Sorry if I removed too much, but I felt that whole copy/paste from the other site seemed totally out of place. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only the front page is a blog. Timeshift (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that site hardly passes WP:RS. And that still doesn't address the fact that over half the article is a copy/paste from something that is not very encyclopedic in tone. Can it be rewritten? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does actually. We've had discussions on other pages in the past (don't ask me which ones, I honestly dont recall), and those who follow WP:RS agree pollbludger is an RS. And perhaps it could be re-written, but my issue is that the quote is laden with information. How could it be rephrased that isn't a quote, includes all the info, without making it bloated? Timeshift (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rewrote everything from "That came to an end..." to the end of the paragraph and added a different citation, so at least that part can be removed. And maybe a third set of eyes can do the rewite - I don't know enough about the man, Australia, or Australian politics to rewrite it, as you've seen :) Can I take out the last three sentences and slap a {{essay-entry}} or {{inappropriate tone}} on it? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the extortion bit? Btw, what is a "retiremed"? :P Neither tag is really appropriate, as it isn't an essay, or an inappropriate tone... Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um - actually - my two biggest concerns here are a) the amount of material and b) the tone. The paragraph totally reads like someone's opinion piece. There are several statements in there that desperately need references, though the PollBludger article doesn't provide anything.

This may be a bigger issue than just this article. A quick search for "pollbludger" on wikipedia [1] shows a disturbing four very similar instances (19 hits total), where it says "The following quote is from pollbludger.com". Literally three of them say exactly that - on Electoral district of Heysen, Ted Chapman (politician), and Iain Evans, as well as this article. And nowhere do I see a discussion of whether or not PollBludger is a reliable source. I found a comment in a DRV does seem to indicate some reliability, though the tone is again mentioned as not encyclopedic.

To your point, though, I feel like "inappropriate tone" is about right. Unless you feel like rewriting it? Or getting a third opinion? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Brindal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107092314/http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/forms/milestones/induction/docs/hdr-induction-evaluation-report-february-2012.pdf to http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/forms/milestones/induction/docs/hdr-induction-evaluation-report-february-2012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]