Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Numerically, we're at about 15 delete to 10 keep, which is a majority but not clear consensus for deletion.

In terms of arguments, the "keep" argument is that the topic is notable because reliable sources have covered it, while the "delete" argument is that the article is an attack page created for partisan reasons, and that an article is unwarranted because all politicians lie anyway.

In my view, the "keep" arguments are stronger:

WP:AGF
.

To sum up, the headcount is slightly for deletion while the arguments for keeping are quite a bit stronger than those for deletion. That being the case, there is no consensus to delete the article, and it is accordingly kept by default. Sandstein 07:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attack page. Any useful material should be included at ScoMo's BLP Pete (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on a notable topic - Morrison's veracity has been documented and reported on by numerous reliable sources. The page's purpose is to cover what reliable sources say about Morrison's veracity, whether they be positive or negative. While much of the coverage happens to be negative, it is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. Hypothetically, if reliable sources published positive coverage on the subject, they would be covered here. Attack pages must be both negative in tone and unsourced. The content in this article is verifiable and reliable sources are referenced.
Precedent exists for comparable pages. See
Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
All politicians tell untruths. It goes with the territory. ScoMo is hardly in the same league as Donald Trump. --Pete (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is a larger volume written about Donald Trump's veracity does not mean that Morrison's veracity is not a notable subject in its own right. Under the General Notability Guidelines, it is enough for the subject to have significant coverage in reliable sources without needing independent research. While telling untruths may be common among politicians, compared to other Australian politicians, Morrison's veracity has been covered in more detail and subject to greater debate, such that it can be regarded as a notable subject. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say that with zero authority. Do you have a RS making this claim? We have better well-referenced examples of notable mendacity in the category of recent PMs, but do we have a Veracity of statements by Juliar Gillard article? We do not. --Pete (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether another article exists or not
is irrelevant to this discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "Scott Morrison - Fact Check". ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).
  2. ^ "A Dossier of Lies and Falsehoods Archives". Crikey.
  3. ^ "Morrison's top 10 bare-faced lies". Independent Australia. 25 November 2021.
  4. ^ "The lie of the land: Morrison's corrosive behaviour threatens trust rebuilt during pandemic | Katharine Murphy". the Guardian. 22 November 2021.
  5. ^ Denniss, Richard (19 March 2022). "Morrison's economic lies". The Saturday Paper.
  6. ^ Mulgan, Richard (6 December 2021). "Morrison's lies mark a new low in our political discourse. Do voters care?". The Canberra Times.
  7. ^ "Scott Morrison Called 'Hypocrite and Liar' in Leaked Texts By Political Allies". thediplomat.com. 8 February 2022.
  8. ^ "Barnaby Joyce not the first to call Scott Morrison a liar". The New Daily. 6 February 2022.
There's clearly enough for the topic to be notable in and of itself. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic has received coverage from many reliable sources. Publications including Guardian, ABC News, 9news, the Diplomat, the Conversation, and Crikey have specifically addressed the veracity of statements made by Morrison as a topic in its own right. Articles from these sources have been cited in the page as references. This topic has also been the subject of public debate by high-profile public figures from different sides of the political spectrum, as well as in the international community. This should indicate that it is of sufficient interest to the public to be regarded as noteworthy. The fact that what various sources have to say about the topic happens to be negative does not automatically make the article an attack page. The page exists to summarise discourse from reliable sources on the veracity of Morrison's statements regardless of whether they are positive or negative. If reliable sources published positive coverage on Morrison's veracity, that would be included in the article too. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an encyclopedia article. It's an exposé. These are two completely different styles of writing, and you can't simply call it encyclopedic and expect people to be fooled any more than you can cook an egg and call it fried chicken. The definition of exposé is: "report that reveals the shocking truth about something". That's what Chris Hanson from Dateline does. Encyclopedias just don't do that without being laughable. As in all exposés, despite the misleading name, the subject of this article is lying. That's a verb, not a noun, and information on lies he may have told belong in his article. Like Frickeg says below, it's an NPOV nightmare. Let me ask you, have you included any truths he may have told? Zaereth (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been stated elsewhere, should there be positive coverage of Morrison's veracity by relevant news sources or publications, that is within the scope of the article. Have you done a simple search for any notable commentary of truths he has told? I don't see many notable sources praising how honest he is, but you or any other editor is welcome to add such commentary should you find it.
Whether or not any relevant truths have been included here can be a matter for discussion, but not here. That is an issue for the article's Talk page, not AfD. Anyways, I'll indulge you on your last point briefly for the sake of the discussion. Also, see
this section, which includes positive commentary by Josh Frydenberg. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The existence of the article creates the NPOV problem, not the content. A similar article could be written and adequately sourced for the vast majority of politicians (I imagine there would be sufficient sourcing for most Australian PMs and all US presidents at a minimum). But the existence of the article is in and of itself a statement, and thus it is inherently against
WP:NPOV. Frickeg (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Responding here to both this comment and your comment above. The article itself does not pass a value judgement about Morrison's truthfulness - it merely reports on a value judgement that has been made by a consensus of other reliable sources. It would be a breach of NPOV for the article to consist of original research that made this judgement on its own. On the other hand, if a majority of reliable sources all appear to make the same value judgement (which lets say is the judgement that Morrison's truthfulness is out of the ordinary) then to have an article documenting and analysing that phenomenon should not be considered a breach of NPOV. NPOV does not prevent articles from being written about topics where majorities have passed a value judgement. To interpret NPOV in such a way is too simplistic and would prevent articles from being written about many noteworthy topics. For instance, the article titled
    Enron Scandal, for something to be a scandal implies that it is wrong and outrageous. The existence of these pages and others like them imply that some value judgement is involved but they can still be written in a way that is compliant with NPOV. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: Add anything relevant to the appropriate pages in the series. Gusfriend (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per arguments of Zaereth and Frickeg with a side order of
    WP:NOTNEWS. Anything genuinely significant can be merged to the main article, but most of this is just trivia. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Partisan attack page created on the eve of an election. Personal essay built on discreet events joined together in an original synthesis. Wikipedia is not a venue for political campaigning and dirty tactics. 12:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs)
    woops, one two many ~. Yep, that was my !vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any subject matter covered in this article is properly-sourced and of demonstrable significance, discussion of it belongs in the Scott Morrison biography. I can see no evidence from the talk page for that article that a proposal to fork this putative subtopic off was made, and without such prior discussion, creation of such a fork is premature, to say the least. Any article of this form is liable to be inherently of questionable neutrality, and it would take a very strong consensus to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree that this was set up as an attack page from the get-go. Just examine the language; the first sentence of the lead is "Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made numerous false and misleading statements over the course of his political career." The final sentence of the lead is "Public perception of Morrison's tendency to deliver false statements has been seen as problematic for his political party, the Liberal National Coalition." The first sentence of the main body of text is "Scott Morrison's history of making false statements has received significant media attention, which has led to issues for Morrison with public trust and repeated criticism from the Australian Labor Party." And so on and so forth; the article presumes that Morrison is a habitual liar, rather than set forth the sources in a NPOV fashion and invite the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Honestly, this skirts G10, well-presented or no. Ravenswing 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you or other editors dispute the neutrality of the article, then you should go and find reliable sources with other POVs and include them in the article. As has been mentioned before, the title leaves scope for inclusion of POVs that provide both positive and negative coverage. It happens that are very few reliable sources providing positive coverage of the subject, and this should not preclude an article from being written about the topic. I see what you are saying about the language, and the first sentence has now been changed to read more neutrally and better reflect the sources. But in any case, that is an issue with the content of the article, which is separate to the question being considered at an AfD. G10 exists to cover articles where there is no sourcing, this is not the case here so G10 is not relevant. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Gosh, I changed a single sentence, so that means I didn't write an attack page after all!" No, sorry, I'm not swallowing that. Nor am I swallowing that there are "very few reliable sources" providing positive coverage of the Prime Minister of Australia, for pity's sake: the man was elected to Parliament fifteen years ago, and you're alleging that just about no one in the press has written anything positive? No, I'm not swallowing that either. Ravenswing 11:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a horrible hit piece, appearing politically motivated. I'd even say it warrants G10 speedy deletion (though I see that has already been tried). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andy and Ravenswing. Borderline G10. Concur with Boing! that this appears as a politically-motivated hit piece, intended to disparage a politician during an election campaign. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a hit piece written for partisan reasons connected with an election next month. This should be discussed more briefly and in a less tendentious way at Scott Morrison. Cullen328 (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not there is an election ongoing is completely irrelevant to an AfD. The article should be debated on its merits or lack thereof, rather than aspersions cast about other editors. The same goes for comments by Zebedee and Jip above. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Combustible Vulpex: Attacking every comment and badgering everyone you disagree with really won't get you anywhere, you know. It just makes you look more like a single-purpose battleground proponent. Oh, and desribing it as a horrible hit piece *is* describing it on its merits - and the possible motivations of an editor who creates an attack article are indeed a valid part of a deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On looking at the the contributions of User:Combustible Vulpex I find that their first contribution to Wikipedia was less than three weeks ago, they made a few trivial edits in unrelated areas and then dropped this article in one edit, all 58K worth, in one go. Perhaps this editor is no stranger to Wikipedia and has some previous history here? That is most unuaual behaviour for someone with a welcome message still on their talk page. --Pete (talk)
What you're suggesting is untrue, this is the only account I own or have owned. I am a Newcomer and have learned to use the interface through those past edits and reading various guides. This should be apparent from the formatting mistakes I made while putting up the article. If you think I am a banned user or using an alt-account then there are other channels to raise that and you should take that discussion there rather than cast aspersions here. You should be focusing on the content itself, not the editor.Combustible Vulpex (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too, am curious about that. But an SPI, would be required. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended, but in my opinion even a controversy section becomes an NPOV problem for the same reason. Not only do people incorrectly use the word "controversy" ("a widespread public debate", not simply anything negative about a subject) merely walling it off in its own section or article creates an intrinsic unbalance. I like the analogy of a UPS plane. Before they load cargo on a plane, they first load it into sections called "igloos" (due to their shape). They carefully weigh each igloo, to make sure they are all balanced, regardless if one has a million packages or just one. If they load all the heavy stuff into just one igloo, the whole plane will be off balance and go down in flames. This isn't much different from
WP:WEIGHT, and other aspects of NPOV and NOR, including synth. Instead of walling it off in its own section, information should like this should be distributed throughout the subject's article in its proper place in the timeline of events. Same info, but now the article is balanced. Zaereth (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree the Trump "article" should be deleted as well, but I'm not going to nominate it. If someone else wants to, I'll put in my two cents. With Trump, he's a bit of a special case, in that I don't think anyone could ever accuse him of lying. I don't think he could pull off a lie with a script, cue cards, and props. The man simply has no filter; whatever goes through his mind comes out his mouth. As much as I've never liked him, even before politics, I do believe that is the one thing that made him so attractive to so many people who are on neither side. Everything he says may be completely wrong, but at least you know it's what he truly believes, and to those people this exposé will only serve to reinforce their support of him; opposite to its intended purpose. Without careful thought, sometimes these things just backfire in the face of their creators. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veracity_of_statements_by_Scott_Morrison&oldid=1082082625"