Talk:Caroline Overington

message: I re-added a previous section outlining Overington's actions around the 2007 election. These were widely discussed in the media, particularly by Media Watch, who saw them as representing an abuse of media power. This section had been removed from the article without good explanation.128.250.114.203 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have removed it (I did not remove it first time) as potentially breaching WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Perhaps a more succinct and neutral version may be appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Have reverted section about the 2007 election campaign, as explained above. Please let me know specifically where you think the paragraph violates particular policies, and I will try to adapt them. Thanks 128.250.114.216 (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is way too much detail about what is a minor matter in the overall context of her career. The content reeks of an editor with an agenda and it includes uncited information. The whole "controversy" is worth about a sentence, if that. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, if you think the paragraph contains uncited information, indicate which assertions you're referring to. That's why I asked "specifically where you think the paragraph violates particular policies". You see, every statement of fact in the paragraph was referenced _at least_ once, with articles that clearly fit with WP:IRS. Simply asserting that "information" is uncited is not constructive. Second, good faith editors might misconstrue loaded words like "agenda" and "reeks" as accusations of bad faith. Finally, I've trimmed the point down to two heavily referenced sentences. 128.250.114.216 (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: On the day of the 2007 federal election, at a Wentworth polling place, Overington was witnessed in a public dispute with George Newhouse, the Labor candidate for the seat.<SMH ref> The Australian published an apology to Newhouse over the encounter in December 2007.<Brisbane Times & Crikey refs>
I found The Australian apology on Proquest and will put in that reference as it seems that a non-primary source is not going to be allowed (as any news source that is not primary will be "a rival publication") Clare. (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Events of the 2007 Federal Election 

message: What's with the edit war people. The material's completely and utterly trivial, and demonstrates nothing whatsoever as to the topic's notability. Per WP:ONUS: . WP:BLPPRIVACY: . BLPPRIVACY is also pretty implicit that article subjects are allowed a certain leeway in correcting personal information, although of course we have no idea what the case is here. Also note that under WP:3RRNO, removal of contentious material is often exempted from edit warring. So yeah, per ONUS and the fact that one of your sources is WP:PRIMARY, as well as complete trivia—for which "it is referenced" is inapplicable (indeed, it is explicitly exempted from WP:VAN: )—means this'll have to be checked in at the BLPN. Cheers,  SN54129 17:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I only reverted once, and that was because the content was removed without an explanation. ... discospinster talk 18:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to remove the reference because I know it's not true - also her website makes it pretty clear that she lives in sydney with her family and he has a website that says he lives in Melbourne with his family but that's not enough? In my opinion this is bullying her into having to "prove" something which she shouldn't have to do. Madmondrian (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone can have a partner without living with them so I'm not sure that means much. And we're talking about two people who work in media, people who have the power and knowledge on how to deal with claims which aren't true and a fairly respected Australian newspaper The Age rather than simply some tabloid. Plus this is a fairly critical article so not likely something that was simply never noticed, and while the issue isn't that important it does have some minor relevance to the claims made so again probably not something that the subjects would just choose to ignore. So it seems unlikely to me the claim would have been made and left all this long without correction if it was completely untrue at the time. (Perhaps the subjects may quibble whether they partner was an accurate term for their relationship at the time but it's likely they did have some relationship enough that The Age feels they can defend keeping the claim.) However it is correct that it's nearly 2 years old so it may no longer be true; and it also isn't that important so IMO there's merit to just excluding it. But trying to argue that this is something that's never been true and the source was simply wrong is IMO going to be difficult. I've commented before that it can be problematic when we ask relatively unknown people to require corrections for ancient material and sources which may even be dead, but this is very far from that, IMO it's entirely reasonable in this case we treat the claim as true at the time and do require correction before we don't; although again this doesn't mean we have to include anything in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Per , I also reverted only once, but for a different reason: though probably in good faith, the user was adding external links while having potential conflict of interest. — B. L. I. R. 18:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP edit war