Talk:Dennis Hood

Creationism

I don't think Hood has failed to be open about Creationism. Apparently he spoke about Intelligent Design (not the same thing admittedly; I've no idea if Goers' article made the distinction) in his maiden parliamentary speech, though I haven't been able to find it in Hansard online. In any case, his maiden speech would be a useful link if anyone can find it. Rocksong 04:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can call Hood a creationist, given that he failed to respond by silence. This is not a court proceeding where Dennis Hood has a duty of care to make a response. It's irrelevant to his job, because its his personal opinion. I suggest removing it. Wikipedia is not the place for original research and journalism. Autorev (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I am unsure whether to nominate this article for deletion or not. I believe that it fails in the notability requirement (WP:BIO). In particular "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." I would suggest that the article needs to have a heavy revision to be acceptable. The only semi-notable thing I could see, and the reason I didn't just nominate it for deletion, was that the subject is currently the leader of the South Australia Family First party. Although with two members, I personally don't see this as notable. I am marking this page in my watchlist, and if nobody says anything then I'll nominate it for deletion in a couple of weeks.Klytos 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)}}

Members of state , provincial, and nation legislatures are always considered notable at wikipedia. They are hardly "local officials". I am not sure I myself necessarily agree personally with this with respect to state or provincial members, but the consensus on this is very clear. They are occasionally nominated at AfD, and the nominations are quickly closed with a keep. Before going further along this line, please check the results of previous AfDs to determine if it will be worth your while. If you want a policy change, try the Village Pump. DGG 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO says notable politicians include, "members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures". Hood clearly qualifies. Peter Ballard 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Hood is a current member of the South Australian Legislative Council, and was elected at the South Australian general election, 2006. Dennis Hood, as per the other current members of the Legislative Council, our states upper house, shall not be removed. Timeshift 03:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the prescription at WP:BIO, any nomination for deletion would probably be met by a snowball keep. Orderinchaos 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hood is one of eleven members elected by almost one million voters. How on earth is he not notable? Perhaps Klytos, like so many Americans, should take a moment to familiarise himself with political terminology in the Commonwealth ("Legislative Council"). What sheer ignorance. Michael ^talk 04:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Klytos - This guy has been nominating currently serving members of the Australian Senate. I think we can safely ignore this user. Timeshift 04:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Er?

"His subsequent voting record has been consistent with his party's line; he attracted media attention for his stances against marijuana and illicit drugs, prostitution for the disabled and recognition of de facto couples." What is that supposed to mean? Rebecca 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, some group was helping disabled people to use the services of prostitutes. (Or at least considering doing so). Peter Ballard 12:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Any objections to removing that? In the scheme of things, it isn't very notable, and it sounds very strange without further explanation. Rebecca 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

They take their daughter to church with them!

I was so thrilled to learn from this article that the Hood's take their 3 year old daughter to church with them. Really? What on earth is this doing in the article? It is completely unencyclopaedic. It would be of some interest if they left her home alone. Otherwise, it doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

sofixit template :) Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Got rid of the three year old attending church with mum and dad. Even removed the missus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I believe that this article would benefit from outside review. There are a couple of things that I think should be changed:

• Peacock words throughout, cf "testament to his Christian feminist position"
• Statements are not supported by the references cited: "established himself as the authority on crime" appears nowhere in reference [56].
• The Judge Marie Shaw paragraph is almost totally one sided, and appears to insinuate that she... well I'm not sure what.
• Perhaps wikiprojects don't fall under npov, but is this really an article of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity?
• If I understand this correctly, the vast majority of references appear to come from a single source that also employs the subject as a occasional opinion writer.
• I'm tagging {{coi}} because most of the problem edits seem to have been made by a single editor, and these edits

Well, I'm pretty new to wikipedia, and I just landed here via the 'Random article' button so I'm not sure how to proceed here. Estevezj (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, this article needs a thorough going c/e and verification of all sources used. I have checked a couple and both needed changes to the text because they didn't actually support the text, there appear to be quite a bit of POV puffery. This appears to be an advertisement for the work of Mr Hood that is not justified by the sources used. This is more serious now because he is up for re-election for another 8 year term next month. Thanks HungryPseph (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Where to start with this mess of an article? Is it so far gone that we should just start again? Timeshift (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dennis Hood. 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/20070928001312/http://www.familyfirst.org.au/documents/DennisHood_000.pdf to http://www.familyfirst.org.au/documents/DennisHood_000.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) 22:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyeditor passing by

Anyone who's taking a look at the article, please check the AdelaideNow citations; many of them seem to be dead links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)