Talk:Great Forest National Park

NPOV concerns

The proponents for this park repeatedly edit the page to suit a political agenda and give a false impression of consensus. It is poor practice to remove referenced information simply because you disagree. This is supposed to be about information not partisan propoaganda. If you don't like the truth go and seek help but stop the vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.24.254 (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it does not improve the article. Note that I'm not a "proponent of this park", but a long term Wikipedia editor. There is no intention to give a false impression of consensus: the article stated from the beginning that the LNC opposed the park and Labor was divided. I added that the forestry industry opposes it and the current environment minister supports it - please don't remove this information. Your other additions are misleading: one academic questioning whether the NP can save the possum is not the same as "academics" disputing the need for the park (that has much broader objectives than protecting the possum). Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before editing the article, and in case of disputed content discuss here first. --ELEKHH^T 09:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The politicians involved are aware of your behaviour now - propogand away! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.24.254 (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted the line An opinion poll conducted in 2014 showed that 90% of Victorians support the proposed park.<ref name="Young 2014"/> Because the source does not support the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.24.254 (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It does. The source states "the Great Forest National Park Plan is backed by 9 out of 10 Victorians". This is confirmed by other sources as well. Also reverted your other edit as it was also well referenced. However I clarified that "threatened" refers to this location, as is protected elsewhere and thus not threatened as a species (explained in further detail at Eucalyptus regnans). If you wish to improve the article please do so constructively by discussing the issues you have here, before altering the text in the article. --ELEKHH^T 23:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The campaign manager for a lobby group saying that "the Great Forest National Park Plan is backed by 9 out of 10 Victorians" without providing any source material or collaboration in an op-ed piece is not a credible source - if you cannot see that you really have no business editing anything - please provide a proper source for this material, edit to say that the protagonists claim this or delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.24.254 (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As said earlier, that sentence was backed by other sources, and the information is not an opinion but a statement of fact. But your vigilant attention to detail did make me amend the article and replace the 90% (9 of 10) with 89% which seems to be a more exact account of the poll based on another source. Thanks for the continued critical questioning of the article, however your edits were so far more disruptive than constructive. Hence I would like to ask again to raise your concerns on this talk page first, and find consensus for proposed changes before editing the article. Also please sign your comments, use appropriate indentation (I did it above for you) and provide proper edit summaries. --ELEKHH^T 09:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Again your source is rubbish (an article by the VNPA who are another lobby group), doesn't cite an actual poll or a recognised polling company and the very fact that the figures keep changing (significantly) every time they are cited should ring alarm bells. The assertion that the Mountain Ash is threatened are also misleading. The term threatened infers a conservation status and that is simply not the case. It is self evident that individual trees are threatened by logging but there are connotations to the use of the word that I suspect you understand - in that sense its continued use is more propaganda than it is reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.24.254 (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Figures do not keep changing significantly - you must be confusing different polls. See WP:RS for use of sources in Wikipedia. Your opinion of what's rubbish and what not is just that - an opinion. With a simple search you could have found that the poll was conducted by Essential Research based on a sample of 812 Victorians, margin of error 3%. Regarding the Mountain Ash I replied already above. --ELEKHH^T 23:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The poll you have cited doesn't even refer to the Great Forest National Park for crying out loud. Instead of condescending and lecturing about the use of sources try reading the ones you cite! A "Yarra Ranges National Park" infers a significantly smaller area than what is proposed with the Great Forest National Park. Again this assertion of support is not supported by your reference and is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.24.254 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I clarified wording. --ELEKHH^T 01:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to revert your POV edits again. In some cases what you wrote was not backed by the reference provided, in others it is just biased reporting. If you want to include the forestry professor's opinion, than you should also include the ecology professor's response to that. Also have a look at the current status of the ash forest in the central highlands. --ELEKHH^T 01:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The references are supported and if you want to add others you should do that. Deleting credible opinion which does not fit your narrative is nothing short of partisan vandalism. I will be back to make sensible changes which you will undoubtedly tamper with because you are not interested in anything other than your ideological position. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.24.254 (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)