Talk:Kathy Sullivan (Australian politician)
| 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. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Kathy Sullivan (Australian politician) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Dawkins and Hansard
editMelbourneStar removed the fact of John Dawkins calling "sweetheart" in Parliament on the basis that it is unsourced.
Well since Dawkins called Sullivan "sweetheart" in Parliament it was therefore recorded in Hansard.
Therefore it was never unsourced to begin with because if it was said in Parliament it would have been in Hansard
This is the not first time I had problems with MelbourneStar and I like for MelbourneStar to stay away from me. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 11:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Also Dawkins calling Sullivan "sweetheart" is included in the Marjorie Henzell article as she is one of the female Labor MPs to express outrage on this. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your initial edit was unreferenced, hence why it was removed. You have been repeatedly warned about adding unsourced content into articles. Your latest edit is referenced, hence why your edit has not been undone. Also, I have every right to remove content that is unsourced (no original research and verifiability are policies on Wikipedia that must always be upheld); as such, I'm happy to "stay away" from you (although, you happen to edit articles I edit too) if you decide to add references to the content you add. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I was reinstating something that was said before, placed years before and as I said if it was said in Parliament then it is in Hansard and therefore not the basis to call this an unsourced statement.
I don't appreciate that you ignored my request about you when you posted your response. I would like for you to grant my request from here on in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.72.79 (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate my comments being misrepresented. I've said that the content was removed because it was unsourced; this dif of the content you added does not contain a citation to a reliable source, and as such is unsourced/unreferenced. On Wikipedia, if you add content it needs to be verified by reliable sources. This has been explained a number of times to you. The onus is on you: if you don't wish to see me or anyone else complain about your edits (adding in unsourced content), how about you don't add unsourced content in articles to begin with? it's pretty simple. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)