Talk:Max Chandler-Mather

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.

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.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Queensland Low‑importance

	Australia portal Max Chandler-Mather 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (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 Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

CFMEU Rally appearance - ABC source

The ABC is a highly reliable source. It is typical for a spokesperson's name to not be included in a news article. The quote adds to the article because it clarifies that Max asked for the signs to be removed.

Additionally I'm unsure if such in depth descriptions of each sign adds to the article. @Sʜaɴks BlueMountainPanther (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC is reliable. There can be little doubt that the spokesperson said what they said, but they provided no evidence for their claim. To include that claim would detract from the account of the substantive event. @BlueMountainPanther Sʜaɴks (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the ABC wrote it is reliable information. Plenty of wiki articles contain info that is only in written articles and not captured on video. It is relevant as it shows that Max does not approve of the signs. BlueMountainPanther (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sʜaɴks: Chandler-Mather and his spokesperson's comments are highly relevant. This article is about Chandler-Mather, not about the rally. Frankly, the amount of the article spent commenting on the event is already probably undue weight on a controversy which, in the sources cited, is a criticism levelled only by his political opponents (and almost solely by a single MP on the attack!) Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 14:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any credible source that Max has been offered a job by the CFMEU?

(I know there are a lot of jokes along the lines of him defecting to North Korea or leading Hamas'

LGBTIQ+ Advisory Council after losing the election, but the unions are his career roots so would make sense). 2405:6E00:4ED:4C89:38AA:FC65:AEA3:1FF9 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added back much of the previous text, expanding in some places for a more balanced point of view. Clearly the Union welcomed his appearance at the rally. The mainstream media questioned or hated it and the left-wing press loved it. The text I've included is sourced and evidenced Sʜaɴks (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sʜaɴks As discussed before the ABC article in which Max asks for the placards to be removed is a highly reliable source. I think this whole section is way to large and only needs to be a few sentences. I'm unsure if it's common practice for wiki pages about politicians to quote commentary from opinion pieces. BlueMountainPanther (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As also discussed before, the ABC article does not say Chandler-Mather asked for the placards to be removed. What it does say is that, the following day, a spokesperson for him claimed that Chandler-Mather had asked for the placards to be removed. There is no evidence presented in the article that the spokesperson's claim is true. Spokespeople for politicians often make remarks trying to rewrite history when they perceive the media to be against them. The substantive event is that Chandler-Mather spoke at the fiercely anti-government rally and roused the unionists attending, not that he tried to settle it down as the edit you've proposed would suggest. The opinion piece from mainstream neutral commentator Speers gives the flavor of the media's reaction and gives a balancing context to the rally appearance. Wikipedia articles on politicians are supposed to include balance and be written from a neutral POV, not be fluff pieces. Sʜaɴks (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As we said before the ABC is not going to report something if it's not true and is a highly reliable source.

"Asked whether he had seen the signs in question, a spokesperson for Mr Chandler-Mather told the ABC the MP had seen the Nazi sign and asked for it to be taken down before he spoke. The sign was visible behind the stage during his speech" That is not written as a claim it is written as fact by the abc and unless you can find a source that says otherwise it should remain in the article as important context.

Your edit calls Speers conservative not neutral. This whole section is way to long and shouldn't be more then three lines. Most of this would be better used on the CMFEU wiki page. BlueMountainPanther (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shanks, this is an absurd interpretation. In the absence of evidence that the spokesperson's claim was untrue, the ABC article can clearly be taken as good enough evidence for such an insignificant claim in terms of its overall relevance to this article. --Sauronjim (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to remind us all of some specific Wikipedia policies here:

WP:BALANCE: "a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

If there are multiple reliable sources supporting the details in this article, please add them there. Otherwise, those detailed descriptions should be moved to articles that are more relevant to their topics. twilsonb (talk) 11:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we don't consider "Chandler-Mather asked for the signs to be removed" to be supported by the sources (though I think it probably is), surely "Chandler-Mather condemned the signs as offensive" is uncontroversial? It's good that we've added a response from Chandler-Mather, but currently there's nothing relating to the actual signs that are the focus of the section. For what it's worth, I'm not actually convinced Speers "criticise" Chandler-Mather in that article. His argument boils down to "Chandler-Mather's actions have made it easier for Labor to attack the Greens," which is not actually a moral criticism at all. There are plenty of actions I would personally love to see politicians take that I also believe would be tactical missteps because of what the public response would be. The harshest condemnation Speers offers in the article is that it is a "question of judgement". Does this constitute "criticising" as readers will interpret it? Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 20:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Speers was 'criticising' Max either. I don't think Speers commentary is relevant enough to the page and should be removed. BlueMountainPanther (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]