Talk:Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement

Australia: Tasmania / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Protests

This section is neither self-promotional (I have no affiliation with the group), nor irrelevant. The group and their protests have received substantial media coverage (see here, there are more than 15 stories, all related to Mr Hirst and his protest group "Give it Back"). I think that this section would be improved by inclusion of further details regarding other groups who are unhappy with the process, perhaps even renaming to something like "Criticisms" once extra details have been added. However, I don't think that this is a reason to remove the entire section. Ed Doddridge (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This group appears to be a tiny handful of people (their website describes them as "three families" and their recent "rally" on Parliament Lawn was attended by only a dozen or so people) and as such does not merit mention as per WP:undue. It is also inappropriate for the only image associated with an article to be associated with a "protests" or "criticisms" section. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 12:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it difficult to believe that you are unaffiliated with the group when you are the one who took the photo you have uploaded and are attaching to the article. This proves that you were one of the dozen or so people at the rally where the photo was taken and which the "protest" section you are trying to include attempts to highlight. This suggests that you also have a WP:COI issue with this topic and should not be editing this article at all. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 13:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above I have no affiliation with this group. I would appreciate your following Wikipedia:Assume good faith and taking my word for it. Since you seem unable to do so, here is some evidence. Parliament Lawns are a public space; I was there to take a tour of Parliament House and take some photographs (if you look at most of the pages relating to Tasmanian Politics you will see that they are almost all lacking images). This protest was finishing as I arrived, so I took a picture. For an example of a photograph I took that day you can look at the Tasmanian House of Assembly page. I hope you are now willing to move on from unfounded accusations of a conflict of interest and onto discussing the actual page.

Your comment that this is a small group is valid, and your argument that they may not warrant a mention because of WP:undue is plausible. My opinion that there should be a Protests/Criticisms section, and it should mention this group, albeit briefly, is based on the following:

There was a substantial amount of media coverage for the protest (here I'm referring to the entire protest including the camp, the walk and the arrival). See link above. Perhaps you will choose to argue that it received an undue amount of attention in the media; that is your prerogative.
There are a number of pro-forestry, anti-TFIA groups on various social media sites, for example this one that have a substantial number of followers or "likes". This doesn't prove anything but does imply that these ideas are not exclusively held by fringe groups, as required for an idea to fall under WP:undue. For a comparison the Tasmanian Greens Facebook page has fewer than 700 "likes", while the main Liberal Party of Australia page has 24,000 "likes". In this context 2,000 does not qualify as fringe, especially for a page with such a local focus.
The Tasmanian Liberal Party are vocal critics of this process. For Example, "...it’s because the forest deal has slowly strangled the industry..." from a speech Will Hodgman gave recently.

Since I had a picture to illustrate "Give it Back" I wrote about them first. The image provides information about the people involved that would be very difficult to convey in writitng. It provides information on age, gender and socioeconomic status. This adds to the encyclopedic value of the protests section. The lack of any other images does not reduce this value. An image of the signatories to the agreement around a meeting table would a fabulous lead image, but without a press pass I don't think I have much chance of taking it. Ed Doddridge (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume that your continued silence is tantamount to agreement? I'll give you a few more days in which to respond. If you don't I'm going to revert your changes. Ed Doddridge (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not to assume "continued silence" indicates agreement, here or in fact anywhere. However, it seems that you agreed that this is a very small group and does not warrant a mention per WP:undue. While I am not opposed to a section mentioning the obviously contentious nature of the IGA in general, I do not think that a group as small and insignificant to the topic of the article warrants mention. In response to your points:

Just because an event receives mention in multiple local news media does not make it significant enough to have encyclopedic value. Local youth sporting scores also receive such attention, for instance, and we certainly don't include Saturday's under-ten soccer match details in an encyclopedia.
Concern about and even opposition to the IGA may not be fringe, but that group certainly is. Hence there may be a good justification for including some discussion about the conflict surrounding the IGA in general. This is quite distinct from spotlighting a single small group though.
I categorically refuse to accept any argument based merely on the implied significance of comparative FaceBook "likes".
Yes, the Liberal Party has been vocal in their criticism of the IGA. I have no objection to their criticisms being given an appropriate level of mention.
Regardless of what information the photo might provide concerning that group (and I would dispute that it even does what you suggest), it doesn't change the fact that any mention of the group is clearly undue. Inclusion of the photo is even more undue than mentioning the group in the text. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 11:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As keen as I am to continue this discussion, Autumnal Monk, I'm afraid that the real world has caught up with me. I'm moving to Oxford in the UK in two weeks' time, and am simply too busy to continue to advocate for the inclusion of a political view with which I disagree. I hope that you can find the time to give the Liberal Party's opposition an "appropriate level of mention" but I will have to leave it in your hands. All the best, Ed Doddridge (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]