Talk:David Shoebridge
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
POV
[edit]This article reads like a promotion for Shoebridge. We are repeatedly told he has been "successful". He is described as fighting for "justice", while "Labor was tearing apart worker compensation and workplace safety laws", the NSW government was planning "detrimental changes for workers' rights", O'Farrell had "unpopular planning reforms", the relocation of the Powerhouse is "costly". In other words, he is right and everyone else is wrong. The article also says, "Shoebridge has campaigned heavily on police accountability, and consistently opposed increases to police powers and attacks on civil liberties in NSW". This is highly suspect. As the article says, Shoebridge has campaigned to water down the double jeopardy rule (in relation to the Bowraville murders) and to change rules of evidence and the statute of limitations (in relation to child sexual abuse). These could be seen as attacks on civil liberties, particularly in relation to double jeopardy. In the end, the article reflects Shoebridge's opinion what constitutes "justice" and "civil liberties", and his position doesn't seem to be particularly consistent. This should be completely rewritten in a neutral way.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed most of the offending material and hence the POV tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
References
[edit]The article is short on references. The citations that are given include Shoebridge's inaugural speech, his website, a Facebook page set up by him, and a note from his mother. This contributes to the overall lack of neutrality.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- To make matters worse, a lot of the references have little relevance to the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please feel free to take a hacksaw to this article. Like many on (especially) state politicians, it is sadly a godawful mess. Frickeg (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Why was the "refimprove" tag removed? I will add it back.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please feel free to take a hacksaw to this article. Like many on (especially) state politicians, it is sadly a godawful mess. Frickeg (talk) 04:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Industrial law barrister?
[edit]I changed the lead to say just "barrister", not "industrial law barrister", but it's been changed back, without explanation. The article says: "Before entering parliament, Shoebridge worked as a lawyer for 13 years, the majority of this time as a barrister with a focus on employment, discrimination and tort law." The citation is Shoebridge's inaugural speech, which says, "In my time I mainly represented employees, unions and injured workers, although my practice included a wide array of civil litigation". (Later, the article says that he was representing unions, without citation.) I don't think there's any justification for calling him an "industrial barrister" rather than just a barrister. If he himself said his "practice included a wide array of civil litigation", why should we say that he was specifically an "industrial barrister"? Furthermore, we don't have an independent source, and Shoebridge was clearly trying to depict himself as a champion of social justice. And, since barristers are obliged to represent any client that hires them, who's to know who Shoebridge represented over 13 years? If we have an independent source which describes Shoebridge as an "industrial barrister", it's OK, but until then I think it's better to simply say he was a barrister.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- There being no response, I changed it back.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Bushwalking Club
[edit]I deleted the list of bush walks taken by the club, and it's been restored. I think this is utterly trivial. This is a Shoebridge too far.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- C-Class New South Wales articles
- Low-importance New South Wales articles
- WikiProject New South Wales articles
- C-Class Australian politics articles
- Low-importance Australian politics articles
- WikiProject Australian politics articles
- WikiProject Australia articles