Talk:Eric Abetz

message: Surely, now there is a need for a section on controversies. I don't think that anyone could argue that a mention of the Ozcar affair is not-notable in an an article about one of the central figures. I will give it some thought, but in the meantime, encourage someone to get started.Methulah (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: I added a short, unbiased reference to Otto Abetz in the article. It certainly is notable as part of his history and biography. If I were to have even a brief biography of me written, it would be remiss of the biographer to include the easily confirmed information regarding my famous relatives. We have the information, why not add it? It's hardly considered biased to list notable relatives in a biography.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Methulah (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi family history 

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: As in many other articles of many other topics, can we please stop suddenly adding things to an article the moment they make a splash in the newspapers, and instead add them in on the basis that they add merit to the article. In this case, a great big "Controversy" section is absolute utter bull[expletive deleted]. When the article is large enough to justify a family history (as is the case with articles of FA-length) then it should be included. Do I have any support with regards for this? Michael talk 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest a less ascerbic, more WP:CIVIL attitude in your edit summaries. You catch more bees with honey. Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep removed. Hardly notable at all. Blnguyen  (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  knee-jerk it-was-in-the-media reactions 

message: He notes that his political ideology was moulded by his university experience, where he was told that his exam results would not be credited unless he joined the Australian Union of Students, saying "I found the notion of "no ticket, no start" to be repulsive and obnoxious and still do". 
This makes no sense. Students did not become individual members of AUS. If their university's student union was an AUS affiliate, they were automatically members of AUS. So Abetz cannot have been told that his exam results would not be credited unless he joined AUS. He might have been told that his exam results would not be credited unless he joined his local student union, but at most campuses this was automatic on enrolment. Someone needs to clarify this, or else the section must be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: AUS membership

message: See this diff. It was reverted by another user. But i'm wondering, it's one thing for the Australian Parliamentary Library IP address to modify another article, it's another thing entirely to attempt to remove what's in the link... at some point is the line drawn by wikipedia, and if so, how? Timeshift (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Abetz a staffer removing content that could be seen as damaging? 

message: I would like to add this article to this wikipedia page of Eric Abtez's comments on the link between abortion and breast cancer.http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/08/07/minister-derided-linking-abortion-breast-cancer/
--Smokeyfire (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is a biography of Eric Abetz, not a health subject page about either abortion or cancer. It isn't the place for the subject to be either debated or covered. The notable feature for the purpose of Abetz's biography is that he said something that received extensive coverage and condemnation - the content itself, independently of that coverage, is not relevant in his biography. However, secondly, even if it was, then the notion that there is a link is a fringe view universally rejected by medical authorities. See for example this and this, or the summary in WP's article Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, some organisations with particular cultural and religious views seek to make an alternative argument about the subject, including the biased source you refer to (for what I mean by bias, see their explanation of their work here). Among medical authorities without such preconceived notions, the conclusion is clear: medical evidence does not support a link. But all this is in any case not relevant, because this article is a biography of Eric Abetz, and is reporting an incident in his career, not reporting on the medical facts of the subject upon which he happened to touch in that particular interview. I hope this is clear - that in a biography such as this, it actually wouldn't matter what the medical journals said, because the biography needs to be reporting how events reveal the subject's views, and how those events influenced their career, as would be the case in any political biography, and in any circumstance. In biographies of currently active figures in public life, this can be a tough line to maintain, because the debates we are reporting have an ongoing 'real world' impact on the individuals. But our goal should be to report dispassionately on the notable aspects of their lives. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion and Breast Cancer link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Abetz. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901070516/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?TABLE=biogs&ID=12216 to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=12216&TABLE=BIOGS
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005044817/http://www.bewareofthegod.com/wp-images/Abetz.pdf to http://www.bewareofthegod.com/wp-images/Abetz.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recent edits have been made to state he is a Christian (which is relevant) but also, related to a current minor news story, that he thinks Christians should pay taxes. My sense is that there is only a tiny group (three in Tasmania, that we know of!) of obscure Christian sect members who think Christians should not pay taxes. This doesn't seem useful coverage for Abetz biography. Can I get some views of others, apart from editor who added the detail? cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the tax bit is definitely undue weight. StAnselm (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian views