# Talk:Dave Sharma

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dave Sharma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well. I will be making my review comments over the next couple of days.
Side note, I would love some input on a couple of Featured List candidates, Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship. I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  03:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the featured list requirements at all, but I'll take a look at anything which jumps out at me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


### GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer review tool
No issues detected Y
Copyright violations Tool
Not seeing anything that is actually a violation Y
Disambiguation links
No issues detected Y
External links
No issues detected Y


### Well Written
"Since May 2013 he has" does not need the comma
I think this has been done already?
"studying medicine he began working" should have a comma after the introduction so "studying medicine, he began working"
Y
"in around 1999" can be simplified to "around 1999"
Y
This part confuses me " (including as the and US President Barack Obama's visit to Australia in November 2011." not as well written as the rest of the article, please reword this.
Y Done, oops.
The "Africa Branch" section really does not have enough info in it to warrant it's own section, can you add some details or perhaps merge it with the previous section?
How's what I did? Can always merge it into another section if you think tha


### Sources/verifiable
All look reliable, correct format, consistent date format etc. when there is an author they're listed etc. It's all good Y


### Broad in coverage
It's a pretty short article, 606 words of "written prose" (excluding info boxes etc.) but it's not so short I would automatically fail it for not being broad enough.
Since the criteria is "broad" and not comprehensive this is broad enough Y


### Neutral
Yes, factual and straight forward Y


### Stable
Short article history, no issues jump out at me Y


### Illustrated / Images
No issues detected Y

@Callanecc: - So that's my complete review, pretty quick since it's a short article. I am going to put this on hold for 7 days to allow for improvements to be made. Let me know when you're ready for me to review again.  MPJ-US  04:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@MPJ-DK: I think I've done everything you mentioned. Let me know if you notice anything else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Callanecc: - I am okay with everything that was addressed, looking good. I am happy to pass this for Good Artice status.  MPJ-US  20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks MPJ-DK!! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It was brought up in a WP:BLPN discussion by the subject of this article here, and I agreed with some of their complaints, so I made this edit which removed some unreliably-sourced/unverifiable material. I'm leaving this note here as a placeholder for anyone who wants to contest my edits. Note that not all of their complaints were addressed, only those I felt were merited. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Having come from the same place I have added another tag for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that better source tag. I know that Crikey is a well-respected news org, but that particular page doesn't read anything like I would expect from a reliable source making that claim. It reads like celebrity gossip, and a particularly "edgy" gossip column, at that. If nobody can provide a better source in the near future, I may just nix that whole part. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
MPants at work, I think it'd be fair to nix that whole part as it's part of their "Tips and Rumors" section rather than actual news, which is likely why it reads like edgy gossip. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
That's my impression, as well. I kinda want to see if someone can source it better, but I won't object if you remove it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the following section of the article that was brought up originally at BLP/N:

On International Women's Day 2021, Sharma was criticized for handing out flowers to women. This move was considered tone deaf by some, and was magnified in the press due to its proximity to the 2021 Australian Parliament House sexual assault allegations.
The source is mainly about Sharma handing out flowers rather than criticism of it, and only one tweet calls it "tone-deaf". I really don't think one source is enough for us to say he was criticized for this action, and I certainly don't think one tweet is significant enough to include that "the move was considered tone deaf by some". These are relatively strong claims for a BLP, and only one verifying source just doesn't cut it in my opinion. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 11:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, I concur. I'd be fine with removing that. I also think we should, in general, have a prohibition on using a source to describe reaction on Twitter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and remove it for now and anyone who wants to contest it can do so.
@ScottishFinnishRadish: What do you mean exactly by a prohibition on using a source to describe reaction on twitter? If you're talking about reaching a consensus to not use sources to describe reactions via Twitter, I doubt that will ever happen. Especially considering a lot of notable people use Twitter to convey their reactions to things. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 11:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
FormalDude, just a whimsical musing because so much cruft ends up in articles because news sources are fine with writing an article with a clickbait headline that's 75% screenshots of tweets from random people on the internet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It would be posisble to keep the "tone deaf" mark if it was attributed to Shaun Micallef, souced to a newspaper article republishing a tweet by a verified account. But I see no reason against just removing it per WP:WEIGHT so thanks for that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Lol, that's definitely true. I would hope editors have the WP:COMMONSENSE not to use those kinds of sources. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 12:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Good point, Jonathan A Jones. I also agree in removing it for WP:UNDUE though. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm reverting (and rewording) the removal of the flowers bit. The majority of the Guardian piece was devoted to covering criticism of it. I said before that referring to it as "tone deaf" is a valid summary of the criticism in the article, but since it seems that phrase is at issue here, I'll re-word it. I also took out the bit about the proximity to the 2021 sexual assault allegations, because that was only mentioned in one tweet by a random twitter account. I also removed a complete non-sequitur about Sharma losing a domain name. I can't imagine why WP would care about something like that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you! ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 13:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't have a terribly strong opinion, but it seems the sourcing is a bit scant to be in a "controversies" section. Checking google news for "dave sharma" flowers international women's day nets 19 results, most of which don't seem to actually discuss the flower handing out event. Most of the other results that are related aren't terribly reliable. Doesn't seem worthy of inclusion, but again my opinion isn't strong enough to revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I net 1,400 Google results from the search "dave sharma" "flowers" "international women's day" -wikipedia. MSN and Daily Mail UK being the most prominent additional sources. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 13:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The MSN source is just aggregated from the Guardian, and I believe that type of article is an example of why the Daily Mail is depreciated as a source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
These are true statements. I also don't have a strong opinion, so I'm inclined to accept MPants's version. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess it appears we have consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Lol ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 14:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
You're right that this is within the realm of crap that led to the DM being deprecated (I was involved in that RfC), but in this case... Well, it's that special time that only comes twice a day.
The MSN aggregation doesn't expand the sourcing on it's own, but shows that the incident achieved some notability, as MSN is predominantly American/Canadian focused.
I'm mostly neutral on non-American politics, so my interest here is just achieving a proper balance. Which leads me to the next issue: WP:CSECTION is some guidance that might need to be addressed, here. Unless we come up with a consensus to keep this section (and we'd need a decent rationale for that), then I believe all of this material should be worked into the main "career" section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree it should probably be worked into the career section since its more criticism of actions during his career rather than actual controversies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I have split out the content from the controversies section. starship.paint (exalt) 10:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I completely forgot to do that. Thank you for stepping in, that looks great. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is Dave Sharma again. I compared the Good Article-ranked version to the current page and have the following additional notes/requested changes for the rest of the page (outside the controversies section):

Suggest adding this back in (not sure why it was removed): He is fluent in English, Hebrew and Spanish.
Request restoring the following from the GA-ranked version with the tweak added in bold: "His appointment as an ambassador at the age of 37 makes him the youngest person to be appointed as an Australian Ambassador to Israel.". The current page's allegations that I was not the youngest is based on an article in the Commentary section at https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/strewth. That op-ed correctly states I am not the youngest ambassador of all time, but that was never claimed; only the youngest Australian ambassador to Israel specifically.
Remove: "In January 2018, Sharma joined Kelly+Partners Chartered Accountants to lead the Government, Incentives & Innovation team in their Sydney CBD office to provide, among other services, specialist advice on government procurement processes for major projects, procurement and bids.[24][25]" because both citations are primary sources.
Suggest moving to a Views section: In response to criticism from John Hewson, Sharma has stated that the Liberal Party has a "good record" on climate change, and is "doing enough" to meet the Paris Agreement.[28]
The image of me swarmed by protestors is contrary to WP:BLPIMAGE, WP:IMGCONTENT, and especially WP:UNDUE• WP:BLPIMAGE encourages caution when using images that depict a person in a negative light and not to use images out of context.• WP:IMGCONTENT says images are normally used to depict events described in the article-text. Here, this protest is not discussed at all.• WP:UNDUE expressly states that images can add undue weight. Here, undue weight is being added to a protest not discussed in the article-text.Essentially, the image adds a lot of emphasis to a disparaging depiction without any citations or article-text to support it.
Remove the following as WP:UNDUE: "Subsequently, Sharma lost control of the domain name for his campaign web site by failing to renew it.[31]" The Sydney Morning Herald is a reputable source, but they only devote the first 143 words of that article to this topic. If every short blurb about me was included, the page would be miles long. Davesharma (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Image I don't think the image depicts you in a negative light because it is commonplace for politicians to be protested in-person when making public appearances and that's not inherently negative. It also is not out of context for the same reason: engaging with protestors is often part of the job of public office. The argument for WP:UNDUE might be applicable since the protest is not discussed in the article, but I think this is up to editorial preference. There might be a better image we can find to replace it instead of removing it since the article only has a few images right now. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 07:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Other changes Your last bullet about the domain name has been removed from the article. I removed the Kelly+Partners text as well. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 07:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Davesharma we don't have many images to choose from currently, as Wikipedia only accepts images that are freely available without copyright restrictions. Would your office be willing to provide some alternatives? If so they can be uploaded to our image host Wikimedia Commons here, which would allow them to be used on Wikipedia. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I would agree with the undue part. We shouldn't have an image of a protest without mentioning the protest relatively prominently in the article body. Its not like we have no other images to use and the article is not so long to be a wall of text. Aircorn (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I tweaked your comment a bit in this edit to aid both discussion here and screen readers for those who need them. This isn't a recrimination, just a note. My edit can be undone, per WP:TPG, but it'd probably be for the best if left in.
I'm not seeing what that adds to the article. Others are free to disagree, but I don't see any reason to add that back in.
This is worth doing.
Looks to be worth removing, as well.
I wouldn't create a "views" section for just that one quote, and I don't believe there's enough in the rest of the article to pad one out sufficiently to justify it.
I disagree with your conclusions about the image being a negative. Almost every successful will be protested at some point, and many unsuccessful ones, as well. The event portrayed in the photo is a press-conference about the elections, which are described in the body. The fact that protesters are there doesn't mean it depicts a protest, except incidentally.
This was already removed, as discussed higher up on the page. Please review previous discussions here and the current state of the page before making requests for changes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with your conclusion about the image. The overwhelming visual is the protests. The speech bubble makes it seem cartoonish, which is not encyclopaedic. It could be cropped to show more of the press conference, but I am not sure how that would look or work. I feel it clearly fails MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Aircorn (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I mean, it factually doesn't fail that guideline. One can argue about the prominence of the protesters, but that won't change that it's a photo of the subject giving a press conference, that said press conference was given as part of an election campaign, and that said campaign is covered in the section in which the image is linked, which is part of an article about the subject.
There's just no basis to suggest that the image isn't relevant or significant. WP:MUG is arguably a policy that needs to be applied here (I don't think it fails that, either, but that's at least a value judgement), but MOS:PERTINENT is not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The picture used at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE as an example is File:APEC Police Helicopter, Opera House, 2 Sept 2007.JPG. While that is an extreme example this has many of the same problems. It is zoomed too far out to clearly see the subject and too far in to adequately show a press conference. Its just a poor photo to use here in the context it is being used for. Aircorn (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I can clearly see the subject in the photo and can clearly tell what is going on. There's really no issue with the photo as it stands in my opinion. It doesn't portray harassment and it doesn't manipulate the reality of the situation in any way. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 02:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the thought bubble being is a bit much since it really gives a negative cast to the image, but as per usual I don't really feel too strongly about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant when I say WP:MUG could be argued here. One could argue that the image portrays the subject in a way that invites ridicule, but claiming that it's not relevant or illustrative is completely ridiculous. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what to tell you, because you're simply asserting things that are factually untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
This is your go to isn't it. For fucks sake we can have a difference of opinion without accusing someone of lying. Aircorn (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Wow, did you really show back up two weeks later to hurl personal attacks and get bent out of shape over this? I didn't even accuse you of lying, I just said you were wrong, but by all means, go ahead and have a fit over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:DHCYCLE   18:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Strangely enough, that would apply to your message too, wouldn't it?
I say we throw caution to the wind and beat that damn horse to a bloody pulp! Who's with me?! Fuck that horse... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I, myself, would like to take a firm stand against horse cruelty unless I'm shopping at Ikea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep our dead horses in meatball form please    18:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, we don't fuck the horse, we eat the horse. Got it.
I just wish I'd known this before my last trip to the stable... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, for that you visit the chicken coop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Fun fact: The UCMJ is universally interpreted as banning any form of beastiality via Article 134: "conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute". The Army, in their infinite wisdom also has had a standing order since the 1980 specifically prohibiting soldiers from using chickens as a "masterbatory aid".
I was told this by a JAG officer when I enlisted in the late 90s, and it was "confirmed" (as much as such a claim can be confirmed by word-of-mouth) by two other JAG officers during my time in, in response to a direct question by me.
I kinda want to know what, exactly, caused the brass to decide they needed such an order, but at the same time, I'm terrified I'll actually find out and not be able to forget it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
   19:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I admit it. That wasn't a very fun fact, at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, today I've learned the way to stop beating a dead horse is to fuck a chicken. Maybe this discussion will finally give me the motivation to write Shit flow diagram. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Until you mentioned that and I took the followup step of googling the term, I'd have told you that an article consisting up "Downhill. Duh." probably wouldn't survive an AfD. But I see that it's quite literally an industry term, which just made my world a little brighter.
(And presumably, a little less redolent.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't believe it's a real term that's awesome   20:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
And as soon as I have some time to drop and I don't feel like loafing I'm going to log in and dump some effort into wiping off the stain from Wikipedia that is the lack of an article on the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Bravo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor, I think that the press conference image is absolutely fine, if the subject wants to hold a press conference, he should not be surprised that photos of it emerged. There is no obscenity present to warrant removal. I would even say that it presents the subject in a good light as he is remaining calm despite the protesters. starship.paint (exalt) 09:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Were someone to take a picture of me as a similar group were protesting me, the resulting image would likely be the start of a whole new reason to protest me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you to everyone who spent time considering my concerns and reworking the page into something more neutral. A few final notes:
Unless I missed it, item #2 above regarding citing an opinion/column to criticise the youngest ambassador claim has not been discussed/addressed yet.
For balancing purposes, I’d like to add something after the “aiding and abetting… illegal Israeli policies” sentence in order to summarise multiple POVs, instead of just the one. Adding something like “Australia rejected these complaints, saying the meeting did not alter its position regarding the status of Jerusalem and the need to resolve this through direct negotiations” would be supported by the same citation.
I still think the page focuses heavily on minor controversies often cited to only a single short article and has other problems, but I appreciate that my complaints have been heard/discussed, so I think that’s a wrap. Thank you again for spending the time to consider my concerns. 
Davesharma (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Davesharma, I removed the whole paragraph complaining about sources making mistakes, because really what does that have to do with the article itself? I added your language to the end of the paragraph on the Jerusalem thing, mostly because I can't think of better language right now. I'd like to paraphrase Haaretz reported few diplomats would attend official meetings with Israeli politicians in that part of the city - although this was disputed by others who claimed meetings were common but rarely publicised. as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Dave Sharma flowers.png
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Davesharma was able to upload a wide selection of photos, see commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Davesharma. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I came here from Commons new image patrolling; c:File:Ambassador Dave Sharma addresses Anzac Day service in Jerusalem.jpg would be the best suited imo; it shows him doing what he is notable for (being an ambassador) and clearly shows a depiction of him. I've skimmed the talk to get a gist of what's going on, but i'll leave my suggestion here and see what people who are more knowledgeable on the subject and GAs in general think. Sennecaster (What now?) 05:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Sennecaster: And you're suggesting that to replace the protestor photo of him, right? I think that's a good compromise. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 06:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the protester photo. It happened during the 2018 by-election, which the subject participated in (and won). There is no other photo for the 2018 by-election. The flowers photo is a minor controversy (and a copyright violation!), it can be replaced. starship.paint (exalt) 09:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Good points. I replaced the flowers photo. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 09:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi All. I thought I was done participating here, but I still felt there was a lot of less controversial content available in reputable media outlets not represented, leading to a page that still focuses more on controversies than reputable media outlets do. Wikipedia's content about the elections leading to my election to Parliament also seem confusing and out-of-order, perhaps due to the unusual process leading to my election.
I've shared some content here showing proposed additions, trims, and moves with annotations. If anyone is willing to review and implement whatever changes they agree with, your efforts would be greatly appreciated. If there's any way I can be of assistance, please let me know. Davesharma (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


### A few more tweaks
I am Dave Sharma, the subject of the article. Most of the changes I've requested have been implemented or rejected. However, I would like to request a few more tweaks that I don't think have been considered yet:

Add to Personal Life section: Sharma has an interest in history, especially ancient Greek and Roman history. He and his family often visit archeological sites. He also plays rugby, soccer, and other sports.
Remove primary source used for undue emphasis from the Government Sector section as follows: In November 2012, Sharma led a visit to Abuja, Nigeria and participated in talks with the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and National Security Adviser as well as with officials from the Economic Community of West African States.
Add the following additional content/citations to the Government Sector section after "on 8 August 2013" in the fifth paragraph and before the "While in Israel, Sharma" in the subsequent paragraph.

Davesharma (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)