Talk:Tony Catanzariti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Funding of Oakeshott and McGrane
Re the sentence referring to payments to Oakeshott and Mcgrane:
- Is this sentence included in this article purely to provide context to the Catanzariti allegation, or is it suggested that Catanzariti organised these payments and/or knew about them?
- If the latter, what evidence is there for this claim? The footnoted article does not make this link.
- If it is purely to provide context, given that Catanzariti has denied that he offered payment to Neville, does its inclusion in an otherwise very short article give rise to 'guilt by association' and imply that Catanzariti is lying?
As you can possibly gather, I am contemplating whether the sentence should remain in the article. I am posting this here rather than simply removing the sentence to seek consensus.
Comments welcome from anyone who has read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:MASTODON. Jeendan 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- You know I had to read WP:MASTODON to post here. My reasoning in adding this information is that given Labor's track record of supporting independent campaigns, the allegation against Catanzariti rises above the level of the usual campaign scuttlebutt. This was no doubt the reason for the source, the SMH, to include the two pieces of information together, even though any support to the late Tony McGrane must have stopped a while ago. I wouldn't have thought readers would see Catanzariti as being implicated in the Oakeshott/McGrane funding... but if that's unclear, a couple of words to spell that out would solve the problem. Joestella 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Everyone should read WP:MASTODON. I think I will link it to my user page. I'm happy with the current wording of this article. Jeendan 21:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
