Talk:John Della Bosca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias and the GST[edit]

If the statement about Della Bosca's comments on the GST are biased, perhaps a rewrite is in order, rather than deletion. Joestella 13:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still says that he supported the GST. What it no longer does is laud him and his faction and condemn his opponents. Come on, Joe, I know you're capable of better than this. Ambi 13:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert suggests that you do not argue in this forum in good faith. But I'm not going to play a revert-war game with you over it. I do not support the ALP Right, its pragmatism does not make it "laudable" to all. That the ALP reacted hysterically to the GST proposal is a matter of public record - in 1998, Labor Times claimed "the only guarantee in Howard's package is that 10% will be added to all prices", describing the package as an "absolute shake-down". I would expect you to declare your political sympathies and (most importantly) propose alternative wording rather than simply undoing other people's work. Joestella 16:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more research and refined the text. In future, if you're worried about NPOV and don't have a better way to phrase things, there's a way to flag potential NPOV problems in Wikipedia so that more people can have a look at it. That you think I was praising the ALP Right suggests that you have some sort of disagreement with the faction that you want to air here. Joestella 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your reworded text is better, if still slanted towards Della Bosca over the issue. As for the previous version, "Della Bosca's position suggests a high degree of political acumen and the sort of pragmatism that is a hallmark of his Labor Right faction" - what on earth makes you think this is in the slightest bit neutral? Please don't even try to defend that. If I'd written anything close to that, I'd be promptly apologising for letting my bias slip into my editing. Ambi 23:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You and I know who Della Bosca is and have a reasonably clear idea about his politics. To the casual reader, the following facts are relevant: that he has a high degree of political accumen; he ran ahead of the eventual consensus in his party on the GST; and that his faction's approach is pragmatic rather than ideological. I'd like to see you defend an alternative reading of the man's record (and let's bear in mind that I'm no fan of the guy), but then I've never known you to engage in debate, let alone declare your ideological hand. Joestella 02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...this is your opinion. That someone has "a high degree of political acumen" and "pragmatic" is not verifiable fact, and is not sourced to anyone, thus is blatantly unacceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ambi 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not actually engaging with my point. Joestella 12:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to add my reading of the man. I'm here to report verifiable fact and if necessary, the cited views of others. Ambi 13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bicycle / swearing incident[edit]

Someone should add something about this.

--121.209.161.193 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fired[edit]

Della Bosca was fired at my school today. He came to open the school and left without a job. There was a press conference and everything apparently. someone should write about this. Enigma182 (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't fired. He stood down while the circumstances of an incident in a restaurant are investigated. If he is cleared, it is possible that he will return to his positions. WWGB (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the woman concerned[edit]

I'd rather not edit war, as it is sourced and interpretations of WP:UNDUE are rather difficult to establish, but I'm uncomfortable with the addition of the description of the woman concerned provided in the Sydney Morning Herald. Personally, I'm not exactly impressed that she chose to reveal the affair so publicly, but that aside, the description provided in the SMH was based on a single psychologist's interpretation of a single letter she wrote, without knowing her background, the full context of the affair, or even her name. Given that I'm not sure that we even need to name her (she hasn't acknowledged yet that the reported name is correct), and that she's not the subject of the article, this seems to me like undue and a possible BLP violation. That said, this may simply be a matter of interpretation, so I'm hoping for other thoughts. - Bilby (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been trimmed to "She was previously in a relationship with Paul "Flacco" Livingston, who is 26 years older than Neill", but I still think that sentence is off topic and should be deleted. This is the Della Bosca article, not the Kate Neill article. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not off topic at all. It demonstrates a history of relationships with much older men. It also provides context to Della Bosca's relationship with her. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does this detail, rather than any other (e.g. her occupation, or her nickname) provide context? You need to show a source indicating it's important. (The SMH reference doesn't). Peter Ballard (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably rare that a newspaper article will say "this is important" after a fact.--Lester 08:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub[edit]

I've added a stub today. There needs to be a bit more work on this page to reflect the numerous ministerial portfolios that he has held during his 10 years in Parliament. [1] provides links to his maiden speech plus portfolios held. I've not had time, but I'm sure there would be some good info to include in this page. I'll try and get back to it, but if anyone else is keen, go to it. Jherschel (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what a stub is - a stub refers to an article that is no more than a few lines long - essentially little more than a placeholder. This page is clearly not that. I'll agree that it's short and lacking on detailed content, but sadly this is all too common amongst current (and indeed former) politicians' articles. Frickeg (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Della Bosca. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Della Bosca. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Della_Bosca&oldid=1198022065"