Talk:Gina Rinehart

From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search

Park

Gina Reinhart is an Australian heiress who funds ANDEV and many climate deniers and skeptics including Christopher Monckton and Ian Plimer [1]

Edit note

  • at first I simplified the badges but on balance I think its better without the climate change badge for a couple of reasons -- when there's a navbar, an image and two badges it all starts getting a bit cluttered. Added to that is that the climate change portal is really not being maintained. So I think on balance it works better without the extra template. And I shifted the pic from the right o the left to help oversome the problem of it being squashed under the navbar.
  • I couldn't really understand why the Hungry Beast clip display was deleted -- I know it is linked to in the resources but I think its useful to display the Yourtube link as well.
  • the most substantive point though was the deletion of the material on Rinehart's early life and her claims about her philanthropic work. Yes it may be puff but the source is clearly identified and it is clearly in quotes. So I doubt that may people will take it just at face value but ultimately it is up to readers to decide whether its useful or not. More to the point though is that this material, while limited at this stage, can be built on over time. Knowing about her Witenoom connection (Lang was an early investor in the asbestos mine) and the link to Mannakal are important for those who want to build a larger profile or explore further. And yes the philanthropic claims need to be taken with a pinch of salt but it is at least worth knowing how they want to portray themselves. I initially included this material because I had a purpose in mind so would like it to stay. I'm open to it being moved but it seems logical where it is.--Bob Burton 04:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It's important to note that SW is not here to replicate the content of WP. WP has all the promotional and background "facts" about Rinehart, much of it inserted at her behest, no doubt. Promulgating para. upon para. of bio details obfuscates SW's purpose. Scribe 06:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes I agree, but to research and critique what someone claims, you have to start with what it is that is they present as their preferred perspective. If you want to critique her claims about her philanthropy then it is important to know what it is that they claim and what the connections are. If the material is removed from the page, then there is no prompt there for any reader to explore the issue further. And there are substantial limits on what can be done on the pages of living people in Wikipedia. As an exmaple. Rinehart's Witenoom connection is important given the current dominant view of asbestos - which her father invested in - and the emerging view of coal - which she is investing in.
I appreciate what you have added to this and other pages so I don't really want to get into an argument about the content of pages. But the nature of wiki pages is that they are works in progress and different people use them in different ways. And while the purpose of SourceWatch is to expose spin, there is enough on the Rinehart page to more than balance what it is that she states about her philanthropic activities.
So while I appreciate your point, I can't see that it hurts to have what she claims about herself on the page. People who want to believe that she's a great philanthropist will believe it anyway and discount anything else on the page. More discerning readers will know that what someone claims about themselves is only a part of the story and that wiki pages are works in progress.--Bob Burton 11:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wedding trip