Talk:Veracity of statements by Scott Morrison

Contested deletion

I feel like this article can be used in an encyclopediac value, if it page has some rewrite so it doesn't sound bias. --Pyraminxsolver (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point, the tone could be improved to sound more neutral. Edited out words like 'claim' and changed them with more neutral synonyms (i.e. said, told). Combustible Vulpex (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source needed for BLP

I asked for a citation for this statement

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has made numerous false and misleading statements over the course of his political career.

and in return we get this diff. Three opinion pieces, none of which make the claim in so many words. This is a BLP matter; we need a reliable source. Not some synthetic argument where the reader is invited to connect the dots because no reliable source has actually made the claim that we not only make in Wikivoice, but base the entire article on. I'm not disputing that there may be a source - God knows that there are a tonne of respected Australian political journalists, few of whom have much love for ScoMo - but I think we need to have a solid source for this rather than a wisp of smoke. Can someone - anyone - please dig up a source? I cannot find one. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for comment at WP:BLPN. --Pete (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Despite asking for citations to support the claim on multiple occasions, nothing was supplied. I have changed the statement to something that is both accurate and can be reliably sourced. --Pete (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic section

I have made some changes to the Novak Djokovic section based on the information in Novak Djokovic#2022: Australian Open controversy including copying some chunks of text which I attributed in the edit summary to better align the text with what was in the sources. After the changes have been made I am not sure that this section belongs on the page at all.Gusfriend (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Bushfires

Two points.

One. If we are discussing statements made by ScoMo, it is hardly honest to quote a statement made by the PM's office when he was out of the country as a statement made by the PM.

Two. ScoMo said he told Albo he was going on leave with his family and where he was going. That statement, on examination, turns out to be largely correct. Albo complained that he wasn't told that ScoMo was going to Hawai'i and ScoMo weaseled in response, but if we are going to question the veracity of ScoMo's statements then I think including a statement that was mostly true isn't useful. Do we have a reliable source that says the statement was a lie? --Pete (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Electric vehicles

This revolves around supposedly campaigning against electric vehicles. On viewing the ABC News clip ScoMo specifically outlined his government's commitment to electric vehicles including ongoing and future infrastructure. He specifically referred to the cheapest electric vehicle available at the time - not top-line vehicles with more power and range. --Pete (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Shanghai Sam

I've trimmed this section down. ScoMo used the phrase to refer to Sam Dastiaryi, apparently denied using "either of those terms" in an interview and shortly thereafter clarified his earlier comment, admitting without hesitation that he had described the former senator with those words. I don't think we need three paragraphs saying the same thing three times. Just wondering how notable this is? What I'm seeing are trivialities and misunderstandings blown up by political opponents for media coverage. In other words, par for the political course. --Pete (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

'Criticism by colleagues' section.

It seems to me that this section (regardless of any other issues with it, of which there appear to be many) is off-topic for this article, since it merely asserts that some of Morrison's colleagues have described him in unflattering terms, questioning his honesty. No actual 'statements by Scott Morrison' are detailed there, and accordingly, there appears to be nothing to discuss the 'veracity' of. One gets the distinct impression that the section was added to imply that since Morrison's colleagues have said unflattering things about him, they must be true. They may possibly be, but that isn't for Wikipedia to editorialise about. Not in an article which purports to be about 'statements'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sports rorts

This appears to be right up there with Ros Kelly but I'm struggling to find any statement by ScoMo that was knowingly untrue. Or described as such by a reliable source. It seems that the information changed between the Press Club event and the Senate hearing two weeks later. Making insinuations, and asking readers to connect the dots when no actual source can be found is synthesis. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Summary

If we are going to have an article about the veracity of statements by Scott Morrison, it is crucial that we have a reliably-sourced statement by the PM that is described by a reliable source as untrue. If we have to ask our readers to connect the dots because nobody has actually made such a statement or claimed it to be a lie, then it doesn't belong here.

A lot of these things are trivial, misunderstandings, genuine mistakes immediately corrected. Crucially, we don't have any reliable source claiming that ScoMo is in any way out of the ordinary as regards honesty. Citing political opponents is hardly convincing. They all accuse each other of telling porkies on a daily basis. A solid statement by a respected political commentator would be of more value.

This article is an apparent attempt to document the routine mudslinging of party politics in Australia and pretend that it is something out of the ordinary. Get some reliable sources saying so. Please. Reliable sourcing is Wikipedia policy; we can't just say stuff that nobody has actually claimed. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge back to Morrison article?

After a significant amount of pruning down to only include independently sourced examples where the veracity of a statement was actually challenged, this is now only a short article with only four instances, and the article could easily be merged back into the main Scott Morrison article or perhaps one of the Morrison Government articles where it will sit better. I thought I'd ask before being WP:BOLD. Deus et lex (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Merging with the main Morrison biography would seem entirely sensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I advised the closing admin on the recent AfD that it was my intention to seek a deletion review after a period of review of the article itself. --Pete (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The page has changed dramatically since the original AfD and a deletion review or a second AfD (probably the better approach) with a note about suggesting that redirection is probably the way to go. Gusfriend (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A deletion review isn't going to take account of subsequent changes to the article. That isn't what they are for: see WP:DRVPURPOSE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A second AfD should be undertaken before just merging. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added merge tags to both articles, but I am equally ok with a second AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a second AfD would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Only if the Veracity of statements by Donald Trump is merged into the Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:TALK#TOPIC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE in this case. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe WP:ANI if you keep this up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There's a precedent. Veracity of statements by Boris Johnson was changed to redirect to Johnson's bio article. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a very short article which would be best merged into the main piece. GardenGlobetrotter (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Also support merging, you could build similar articles about most political leaders. Wasn't aware of the AfD but the closer's reasoning is poor. ITBF (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I've left this over a week now and we seem to have basically unanimous support in favour of merging, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do that now. Deus et lex (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)