Talk:Jack Snelling

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

Case for reinstating Snelling's statements on uranium mining and nuclear power[edit]

I'd like to present a case for reinstating Jack Snelling's position on uranium mining and nuclear power to this article. These topics are of great significance in South Australia, where a Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission is currently underway. Cabinet, of which he is a member, is likely to make decisions based on the recommendations of the NFCRC which will be released in the next six months. --Danimations (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, what you've just said is WP:OPINION and WP:OR until WP:RS says otherwise. The now-removed contribution of yours was a serious violation of WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV when there's only one sub-heading, and it's about something so specific, and takes up half the article. And to boot, you used just one reference for the entire section, a travel report from the SA parliament website. Also, you claimed he went on the dime a dozen parliamentary tour as a minister... a speaker is not a minister, but semantics aside, the tour in itself and the contents of the sections were not WP:NOTABLE, which stuck out like a sore thumb when there's blockquotes and only a travel report from the SA parliament website. Where's the RS from media outlets, which include the great detail you added, to demonstrate notability? Even if he was a minister... can you imagine how insanely long and bloated every minister's article from both sides of politics would get if the large amount you added was done every single time a minister went on a policy-related parliamentary tour, referenced solely by a SA Parliament travel report? You have been on wikipedia long enough for you to know such basic guidelines. The fact you're arguing against the removal indicates you have quite a way to go. Additionally, this and some of your other recent edits have had a hint of WP:SOAPBOX. I suggest you have a look at a very wide range of MP articles and see what they share in common and what they don't - and through that, understand what WP:BLP articles are for and what they are not for. A good example to base your future attempts on is the nuclear portion at Peter Malinauskas. It doesn't imply or slant a point of view, it doesn't take over the article/it factually summarises, and it has a RS from a media outlet which in addition demonstrates notability. What I removed from this article, and the example i'm pointing to, is a very clear lesson in contrasts. Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response, User:Timeshift9. The history log shows that this content was originally written to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission article. It was moved to this article after discussions on that article's talk page, whereby it was concluded that much of the content on that page was better placed 'forked out' into other articles. In hindsight, after the relocation of this content, I perhaps should have condensed it- a step I neglected to take. The case I'm arguing here is not for the reinstatement of the content in the level of detail it was appeared prior to deletion, but in a more condensed form. Perhaps a simple statement noting that Snelling made a delegation to Areva in 2009 would be suitable to include, supported by the parliamentary travel report as a reference. I assumed (perhaps in error) that the notability of Areva and the topic of nuclear power, which has long been a topic of public and political debate in Australia, would have supported the noteworthiness of this inclusion in a more condensed form. I appreciate this discussion and your critical feedback. --Danimations (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd be supportive of adding some concise mention of Snelling's views - nuclear issues are one of the few controversial issues where Labor MPs can relatively freely push their opinions either way, so it's more relevant than your average party-line quote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was pretty clear already... "A good example to base your future attempts on is the nuclear portion at Peter Malinauskas. It doesn't imply or slant a point of view, it doesn't take over the article/it factually summarises, and it has a WP:RS from a media outlet which in addition demonstrates notability." It's just common sense. But to further clarify for Danimations, unless a WP:RS from a media outlet demonstrates that this parliamentary travel was notable beyond others (very highly doubtful), then it's not notable for inclusion. That's not to say his views aren't. Why don't you just work with the example at Peter Malinauskas? A brief and to the point sentence or two on the issue itself without straying in to irrelevancies or giving it it's own unnecessary section heading, and a WP:RS to back it up. Surely it's not at all hard or time consuming to work off the Malinauskas example. The only real effort you need to make is finding a suitable WP:RS. news.google.com.au or just google, with choice keywords, often work wonders. Timeshift (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I so don't care enough to do it, and I don't disagree with you at all: I was just supporting his views being important enough to mention in this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering I did not argue to the contrary and furthermore provided suggestions on how he can suitably re-add the subject, i'm suspicious as to the motivation and intent, considering discussions on other talkpages. Nobody is arguing otherwise. The discussion is already where you want it to be, with nothing extra added. There's nothing wrong adding your two cents but this particular example certainly sticks out like a sore thumb, over such a minor issue where nobody is disagreeing. I'm not so sure you would have added your two cents if I wasn't involved in this. Fair comment...? Timeshift (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, we agree here. It was not obvious to me that we did, it turned out that we did. Problem solved. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for potential article expansion[edit]

Listing sources which could be used to expand this article:

--Danimations (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Snelling. 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) 09:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Health minister[edit]

Jack Snelling was the minister for health. Can some one put the infobox, thanks.103.246.39.46 (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Snelling&oldid=1201121903"