Talk:Greg Hunt

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Image

Tagged and removed copyvio image. Like copyright images posted to Flickr, simply mirroring an image does not allow a third party to give unfettered public domain or equivalent permission by the copyright holder. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected this page for one day - because of increased vandalism - most likely due to this news article: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html -- Chuq (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The line about "important policy research" should be removed, or properly sourced. It references only the Sydney morning herald/Fairfax article which takes as its source for the claim...this very article that references the SMH. If he really can be "quoted" as "[using] Wikipedia for important policy research" please provide that quote. I have no interest in Australian politics or denying climate change but I find this point very irritating. The 'bushfires in Australia' page contains detailed information and should not be mocked, neither should a newspaper be quoting a single line by a single NON-REGISTERED user in the middle of a political debate where the page is likely to change. If 149.171.104.159 doesn't believe wikipedia should be relied on as a source, in this case statements of fact regarding past bushfired, they are welcome to leave--Markbenjamin (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed the page but welcome debate. --Markbenjamin (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbenjamin (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I have removed it. StAnselm (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment regarding his use of Wikipedia as a source was not attacking the credibility of Wikipedia as a source, however, instead referred to Greg Hunt's rejection of IPCC reports on the link between increased extreme weather patterns and climate change, using Wikipedia as the basis. In saying this he is suggesting that the one of the most detailed and well researched efforts in the history of Science is incorrect based on his use of an encyclopedia. Any encyclopedia, even the best in the world (Wikipedia), should not be used as a basis to discredit peer reviewed research, such as that which led Ms Figueres to contradict Greg Hunt. Mr Hunt is the person in this situation responsible for any disrespect towards this encyclopedia through his intellectually dishonest usage of the resource.

The quote could be found in the audio clip that was attached to the article but since deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.120.18 (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markbenjamin, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, even by Wikipedia's own standards, so a minister in a national government who gets his scientific education from Wikipedia is, and should be, an object of mockery and even concern for all citizens of that country. If you believe Wikipedia is a reliable source and should be the basis for national policy-making, I suggest you should further familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. Otherwise, as per your suggestion, you are also "welcome to leave". --62.189.73.197 (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have an issue with me extending the semi-protection by another couple of days? Especially given articles such as this: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/wikipedias-verdict-on-greg-hunt-terrible-at-his-job-20131024-2w34y.html - published two hours ago (7am Friday) even though the article has not had a comment like that for over 18 hours. -- Chuq (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this vandalism re-started not long after the protection expired I've extended it for a week. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia Quote

I would suggest Markbejamin actually listen to the headline audio clip supplied by Fairfax in the SMH article, as it contains a recording of Greg Hunt on the BBC world service making the following relevant truncated statement;

"I looked up what Wikipedia said for example..."

I would also suggest in the future he properly investigate issues of referencing before then expecting others to correct his own mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.252.5 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 26 October 2013

Why is this page semi-protected?

There is additional background and personal information (with cite-able sources) that I have that would inform users of Wikipedia. Sportsnutau (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.
Your comment in the section above (which I have deleted, but can be checked from the page history) was not at all encouraging, by the way. Dendrite1 (talk) 03:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Wikipedia comments really need their own section?

I know, we love it when a public figure talks about us, and want to mention it in his article. But concerns of WP:RECENTISM and WP:WEIGHT apply. It's not clear to me if this quote is of such importance to Hunt's career that it needs to be highlighted in the way it currently is. I guess we should wait and see if there's any longer lasting consequences first. But my feeling is that that these comments, if worth mentioning at all, perhaps should be mentioned just as one line in the 'political career' section rather than being given their own section. Robofish (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree; in all likelihood this would be, at most, one of many events in Hunt's political career. I think it's worth keeping the quote (it allows readers to assess Hunt's words directly), but it should probably be part of the "Political career" section. If it does have significant consequences it could maybe become a subsection later. Also I would propose the wording "about the relationship between climate change and bushfires" as clearer than just "about climate change issues" at the end of the sentence - any feedback on that? Dendrite1 (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Hunt was really just responding to a topical issue. There is an interesting discussion developing re climate change and the bushfires that can be found at Talk:2013 New South Wales bushfires. Rangasyd (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like consensus to me. It's now more than eighteen months later, and nobody talks about the incident. Except us. If someone has a recent MSM example, please throw it up here. Please. --Pete (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can thIs article be posted to the article on Hunt?
Greg Hunt Caught Editing Wikipedia To Deny The Existence Of Cyclones
[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pionade (talk • contribs) 05:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. What rubbish. --Pete (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Greg Hunt

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Greg Hunt's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "green":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Greg_Hunt"