Talk:Richard Di Natale

message: Some of the words, particularly the verbs, in the article, particularly the Parliamentary career section, come across as rather emotive. This is in contrast to Wikipedia's neutral point of view and impartial tone policy.
Additionally, the use of 'Di Natale', 'Dr. Di Natale' and 'Senator Di Natale' throughout the article is not consistent.
Could an editor please check this article for its neutrality?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.162.235.30 (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've struggled to find much substantial concern in the parliamentary career section, however i've made some changes, and i've also ensured he is correctly uniformly referred to by his surname only throughout the article. If you have any concerns from here please leave a message. Tags, particularly article POV tags, are not desirable and should only be used as a last resort. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible neutral point of view issues 

message: Given the that the article is BLP and that of a current politician, I wasn't about to leap into making changes without discussion, so here goes ...
1. Could the 2 refs (Currently #s 27 and 28) that link to YouTube videos be made to note that they are video recordings of the senator's speeches in the Senate? My first reaction on reading them was: "YouTube? As a reliable source? I don't think so!" But if I had known what the actual content was I wouldn't have been so disconcerted.
2. Then there's refs # 25 and 26 (see below), relating to Di Natale's positions on West Papua and PBS. The first problem is that they both currently return "Page Not
Found", and the second is that they were originally links to a political party's (Di Natale's party, not surprisingly) web site, which also seems a bit ... dubious as a reliable 3rd party source. I don't mind the content, but the sourcing could, I think, be better. 
3. Finally, the third paragraph under the heading 'Parliamentary career' begins with: "Di Natale has also achieved Senate inquiries into many issues ..." Does one 'achieve' a parliamentary inquiry? Perhaps 'instigated', 'supported' or 'participated in' would be less ... puffish. And "many issues" sits uncomfortably with me. I would have no problem with 'several' as it goes onto list more than 'a couple, or 'a few', but "many" seems to suggest an 'unusually high number'. Compared to what/whom? 
* 25. "West Papua | Richard Di Natale". richard-di-natale.greensmps.org.au. Retrieved 9 February 2014.(link = http://richard-di-natale.greensmps.org.au/westpapua)
* 26. "Search | Richard Di Natale". richard-di-natale.greensmps.org.au. Retrieved 9 February 2014. (link = http://richard-di-natale.greensmps.org.au/search/node/pbs)
Wayne 16:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  reservations about some references and phrasing 

message: As his Deputies have resigned from the Senate, this article may need updating.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deputies 

message: Apart from an ABN registration (which could be someone else), I can't find any references for Di Natale's middle name being Michael, and have changed it to Luigi as per his tweet and citizenship confirmation from the Italian consulate. --Canley (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The ABN was likely his, being in the Otway Ranges, but this reference is firmer. --Canley (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name 

message: A wikimedia message was left for me indicating missing permission information. I was under the impression for years that Green parliamentarian photos were licensed under creative commons but upon review it seems ambiguous. As late as March 2016, the Greens website stated "This website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License". However, the current Greens website states "This website, excluding trademarked logos and images or content noted otherwise, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australia Licence". When it says trademarked logos and images, are they referring to naturally trademarked logos and graphic images, and not photos? Or does the disclaimer read as excluding photos too? I'm pretty sure from memory that the Greens' intent is for their parliamentarian photos to be licensed under creative commons... perhaps those users on here who have at least some sort of informal connection might be able to get the webmaster to explicitly state that parliamentarian photos are counted as licensed under creative commons? Timeshift (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Di Natale photo listed for deletion?