Talk:Tom Elliott (radio personality)

Political views

In 2015, he called for a temporary suspension of democracy, arguing that Australia should be ruled by a benign dictatorship instead.

Tom wants immigration into Australia to be cut and laments that voters are never asked what they would like the immigration rate to be.

The above were removed twice. X1\ (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

These are comments that he made which received no secondary coverage in reliable sources. They have the same notability as any public statement he has ever made on radio, television or print. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If this person says something this overly dramatic and it doesn't get covered much, is this person even notable? (Google search for "benign dictatorship" & "Tom Elliott":[1][2][3][4][5][6], "Democracy, Trust and Legitimacy" by Simon Longstaff aph.gov.au) X1\ (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As we can see, reliable sources did not think these remarks were dramatic enough to be notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As I suggested above, I've added Template:Notability to this article. As I have said in ES the items are Wikipedia:Silent consensus (there 237 days), and we have not come to a consensus if removing the items is appropriate. X1\ (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Third opinion

X1\ (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (X1\): If this person is notable, then this person talking about dictatorship is notable, even if oxymoronically (per Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. by Lord Acton). X1\ (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Moved to "Third opinion (corrected)" below, as I appears I've done this template incorrectly and am attempting to correct. X1\ (talk) 19

30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

All that determines if this dictatorship remark is notable are the reliable sources, not you or any Wikipedia editor. The only sources are the publication of the remark itself and fringe media outlets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Copied into corrected Template. X1\ (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here): ....

• I am simply reading the source (cited above). It does qualify as an RS. Second phrase: It’s time we temporarily suspended the democratic process and installed a benign dictatorship to make tough but necessary decisions. Yes, that can be included on the page per WP:RS. Now, what if this were something self-published by the subject (it is not). Even in that case, this could be included on the page because the page is about the subject himself. And remember, this subject actually wants his views to be broadcasted. There is nothing even remotely similar to a BLP violation here. Is it "due" on the page? I have no idea. One needs to know the subject to make a qualified judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Copied into corrected Template. X1\ (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Third opinion by X1\: ....

Third opinion

Viewpoint by (X1\)

If this person is notable, then this person talking about dictatorship is notable, even if oxymoronically (per Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. by Lord Acton). The items are Wikipedia:Silent consensus (been there 237 days), so they stay until if or when we get a new consensus. X1\ (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Onetwothreeip)

All that determines if this dictatorship remark is notable are the reliable sources, not you or any Wikipedia editor. The only sources are the publication of the remark itself and fringe media outlets. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• The original request by Onetwothreeip was about this. I am simply reading the source (cited above). It does qualify as an RS. Second phrase: It’s time we temporarily suspended the democratic process and installed a benign dictatorship to make tough but necessary decisions. Yes, that can be included on the page per WP:RS. Now, what if this were something self-published by the subject (it is not). Even in that case, this could be included on the page because the page is about the subject himself. And remember, this subject actually wants his views to be broadcasted. There is nothing even remotely similar to a BLP violation here. Is it "due" on the page? I have no idea. One needs to know the subject to make a qualified judgement. Yes, it is definitely due based on this comment below ("drive-time presenter on the most popular talk radio station in a global city of five million people"). My very best wishes (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

How does Third opinion / etc work?

Am I using the Template:Third opinion correctly (now)?

Follow-up question: Am I following the WP:3RR correctly?

And if the "Third opinion" doesn't resolve this, what would be the next step, or choices?

Would it be better to use Template:Admin help instead? X1\ (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So, in reverse order,

• I don't see anything that needs an admin — no page protection, deletion or anything about the tools.

• The usual next step after WP:3O is to file at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, a WP:RfC is also an option.

• I do not see a 3RR violation, but you should see the end of the first section on that page say it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Since you've attempted dispute resolution, I doubt you'll be sanctioned for edit warring though.

• Usually 3O requests are listed at WP:3O so that people see them and come offer their opinion. Seems it wasn't needed in this case, but if you want to use it again, you should probably do that. Most of the time the template isn't even necessary, just link the talk page section where discussion has stalled. It's usually only used by the volunteer responding to the request when the discussion is unclear.

Good luck Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the luck, I may need it. Note: I have also been seeking input at the Teahouse.

Thank you @Alpha3031: for all your useful comments!

• Glad it appears I picked the better Template.
• I will consider the WP:RfC first (or Template:Article for deletion per Teahouse discussion) as no need to escalate, unless needed.
• I saw that last bit, which is why I was asking.
• Great tip! If I remember the process, I will directly request in the "Active disagreements" section on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page as that maybe be a better route than (attempting) to apply the Template:Third opinion.

Thank you again, and thank you for the Luck. X1\ (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Notability

I have no strong opinions on the content dispute, but notability tagging the drive-time presenter on the most popular talk radio station in a global city of five million people because you have a content dispute is the WP:POINTiest thing I've seen in a while. Knock it off. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)