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 Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not sure if you've noticed, but compared with the Family First pollies ( Robert Brokenshire and Dennis Hood), the pages for Mark Parnell and Tammy Franks are tiny. This is surprising given the Greens tend to get around 13% of the vote, whereas FFP only get around 5%. There needs to be increased referencing, academic rigor, and content. Twigfan ( talk) 10:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The user User:Timeshift9 removed the heading Controversy, stating the reason "we don't use "controversy" as a heading on wikipedia". I've reverted this reversion because I think it's just plain vandalism. The Miley Cyrus article has "controversies" as a header, so it's good enough for me. Also, again with the *rolls eyes*, who is this "we" you're referring to, User:Timeshift9? Haven't you been previously accused of elitism? Twigfan ( talk) 07:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I forgot all about this. I happened to come to the talk page to ask if we can shrink down the tax return failure section down as it takes up a majority of the article as it stands - undue weight. I changed the heading of controversy to tax return failure (best I could think of) as we clearly have a guideline for WP:Controversy sections. They should be avoided. Timeshift ( talk) 19:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)