Talk:Andrew Wilkie

First discussion section

Could the anonymous author of various edits (a) get themselves a login and (b) follow Wikipedia policy (eg no weasel words, neutral point of view)? m.e. 09:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

M.E, I fail to see what your objection to my edit is. Exactly what information Wilkie was privy too IS classified. And the accuracy of his book has been called into question (read Andrew Bolt if you dont believe me).

Hell, even a poll on the Australian Green's website showed a substanial majority doesn't believe Wilkie. http://www.greens.org.au/wilkie

And M.E last time I checked, it was not complusory to get a login.

No, But it gives you more credibility if you want to do edits that are going to be contested for one reason or another.

The claim that the information in Wilkie's book is classifed seems extremely unlikley. If so, why hasn't he been arrested for revealing classified information? Wilkie and his publishers would have had a team of lawyers and experts go over the book before publication to make sure that no classified information was contained therein.

Quoting Bolt as a source of criticism is highly dubious as you have provided no specific details. Bolts' credibilty is unlike Wiklie's, highly comprimised. e.g. Festering Andrew Bolt contagion exposed

Bolt, I think unlike Wilkie, has been the subject of Federal Police investigations regarding leaked classified information.

The "poll" on the Greens web site is not valid evidence as it is completely unscientific and it is in no way possible to extropolate those results as valid across the population. --Wm 05:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that Wilkie's book contained classified material. I'm saying that what information Wilkie was privy too when he was an Analyst is classified.

Nor am I saying that Bolt and/or the poll mean that Wilkie is lieing. They merely mean that some people dont believe him. The way the article is written at present, all of Wilkie's claims are accepted as fact. The only source of these claims is of course Wilkie himself. --203.17.44.84 08:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, really? Andrew Bolt is not quote worthy in the least. He is embroiled in more controversy then anyone he cares to attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alreadyinuse123 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article is currently stating all of Wilkie's claims as facts. His motives are also stated as facts.

The two links under "See Also" are unrelated to Wilkie himself and just seem to be links to entries with NPOV issues written from a similar viewpoint.

The paragraph heading "2003: private dilemma" is not suitable as the paragraph contains the phrase "Wilkie gave extensive television interviews and accepted numerous offers of public speaking engagements" - hardly a private dilemma.

The Australian Government's statements about Wilkie's claims are not quoted.

In fact the word "claim" is used only once (correctly) to describe the use of the intelligence by the Australian, British and U.S. governments to justify the war on Iraq.

A previous edit stating that the accuracy of Wilkie's book, Axis of deceit, had been questioned has been deleted (reason given was "remove POV edit" by m.e.).

--Motleyfool 23:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm reading his book and I cannot see any classified information, although a good knowledge of Iraq and the region. As per July 2006 all the facts he exposes are true, have become reallity and if people choose not to believe hard evidences then they may choose not to believe that the Earth is round.

Military rank

The article incorrectly states that Wilkie rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He only rose to the rank of Major. --Roisterer 17:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In the prologue of his book (google link) he states he was a lieutenant colonel, so in the absence of other references, I've provided a cite to his book and let the sentence stand as is. Donama (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Party and Greens membership

The article contains the line "he became a member of the Liberal Party. Wilkie has reportedly since let his membership lapse", while later noting that he stood for the seat of Bennelong as a Greens candidate. I'm not au fait with the Greens electoral regulations but I can confidently state the following:

• Most political parties require you to be a member to stand as a candidate; and
• Most parties (presumably including the Greens) require you not to be member of any other political party.

Therefore I would say that Wilkie has almost certainly let his membership lapse. --Roisterer 17:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilkie's membership of the Liberal party lapsed quite some time ago, well before he joined the Greens. I don't have a reference for this however Peter C Talk! 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tweaked the sentence about his lapse of membership to clarify this. Donama (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Motivations for supporting Labor

The assertion that Wilkie supported Labor in exchange for $340 million for a hospital is highly questionable. The reported promise in relation to hospital funding was $340 million offered by Labor and $1 billion offered by the Coalition. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/wilkie-rejects-abbotts-hospital-offer-of-1bn/story-fn59niix-1225913517932) Suggesting that Wilkie was basing his decision on pork barreling is patently wrong. I am not trying to portray Wilkie as a saint, but let us not slander him either. Owen :-P 12:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

One would have to wonder at the motivations of someone who does arbtratry edits without taking part in the relevant discussion. Owen 12:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Donama, we have a discussion page here. If you really want a discussion then please use it. If Abbott's offer of one billion is not relevant to the discussion then nor is Gillard's 340 million. You did follow your reference's omission of the full story, but from my quick google of [wilkie hospital funding] you must have looked hard to find a reference which gave only that half of the story. Admit it Wilkie's response to Abbott and Gillard's offers was clearly more reasoned and principled than your allegation that he did it for his local hospital alone is intended to make it look. If you want to include one part of the story then put the rest in too. Most of the population of Australia are currently wondering how Wilkie is going to shape up as a politician, I certainly do not know if he is going to be any good or not, but this situation has at least shown that he is concerned about more than whether he is going to get re-elected next time as your assertions suggest. If you want to stick with ABC references you could go with http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/03/3001227.htm "Mr Wilkie said he believed Labor would better be able to offer a stable, competent and ethical government." Personally I am not too sure Labor's ethical credentials are unblemished, but on a relative basis Wilkie might be right. Owen 14:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) Djapa Owen 08:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Djapa. I'm not insisting on my interpretation here. Just wanted to stimulate proper reasoning on what to include. I'm happy to include more information on the basis of your rationale, but still think it needs rewriting to be more encyclopaedic. Later, when I have more time to spare... Donama (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

... relativistic...? Oook. Anywho, "Most of the population of Australia are currently wondering how Wilkie is going to shape up as a politician" - are you kidding? Most of the population does not care about nor pay any attention to politics. Timeshift (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, relative basis then. And thanks for the nihilist apathetic viewpoint timeshift. If you do not care why say anything? I refuse to beleive the australian myth of an ignorant silent majority who care about nothing beyond the rim of their beer glass. No one I know fits that stereotype. Djapa Owen 08:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, those you associate with don't fit the stereotype you don't like. How surprising that is :) Timeshift (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That is right, I am basing my opinion on those that I met in 10 years of taxi driving, as well as truck driving, bus driving teaching at TAFE and Uni and ten years of Defence and stores/warehouse work, and all up 30 years in the workforce. I appologise for my limited sample size, but what can you do? I am only human. I am sorry if I do not fit your idea that I am a latte sippintg intelectual but I cannot help that. Djapa Owen 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Indeed. Timeshift (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And another Coalition supporter tries to edit out the truth. Djapa Owen 12:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Try reading my user page. Could I be any more anti-Coalition/Liberal? Timeshift (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My previous comment was not aimed at you Timeshift, and I withdraw it having looked at barrylb's home page - I was just frustrated by having my input removed constantly, particulary when it is done without discussion. I feel that it is relevant, and it is only one sentance. I cannot understand why people want to perpetuate the tabloid media line that the Colalition are innocent of pork barrelling in this. I am not trying to push the barrow for Labor, they are not my party. Djapa Owen 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

R. Wilkie

Wilkie is recorded in Hansard votes as being "R. Wilkie", although he is listed in the members' list as "Andrew Damien Wilkie". Does anyone have any idea why? Most curious. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Link? The latest Hansard at [1] shows "Mr Wilkie" and I can't see any reference to R. Wilkie at the documents off http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votes/. Barrylb (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the record of the division on page 106 of this PDF. It's like that in all divisions. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I would say this is just a mistake. Barrylb (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

Cleaned up these comments into one section. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Gunns Pulp mill has know been granted the go-ahead by the Federal Government . If you want to state he is against it, you must state it had been allowed. What are you his PR Guy?

Andrew Wilkie has made no secret of his early cadet year s, when he accumulated about 250 punishments - 175 of them on consecutive days. This is fact. Why is the moderater deleting this? You cannot leave out what you don't like. I will continually update this until I am gave a reason.(Rugby8614 (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)).

We have very strict rules on biographies of living persons. In the pulp mill case, the fact that it has been "allowed" is not relevant to a biography of Wilkie, since his opposition is not based on the fact that it was approved - it would become relevant if his policy somehow changed after approval, or something along those lines. In the punishment case, two things. Firstly we generally look for secondary sources - quotes from his own book are thought not to be reliable. Secondly (and more importantly), I don't find the passage you want to add particularly relevant - the punishments were not notable in and of themselves, and the only source we have for the collective number of punishments being some sort of record is his own book. I'd be more open to movement on this passage than on the pulp mill one, however. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am raising issues and you are choosing not to respond to me. I will take this all the way to the top at wikipedia. I have nothing to hide from. I am an everyday person that has no problem revealing my identity.Respond and explain to my issues or this war will go on for a long time. I can make 100 accounts (Rugby8614 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)).

Taking no stance one way or the other on the issue in question, threatening to create sockpuppet accounts does not help your credibility. You will get much farther stating your case in a calm and dispassionate manner. Seaphoto^Talk 07:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Duntroon allegation

Donama's rewrite makes me feel much better about how this is presented, but I'm a bit nervous about the accusation as a whole, and I'm wondering if we want to run with it now, or if we would be better off waiting a couple of days. My concern is that the article which broke the story is relying on a single accuser, no collaborative evidence, and the journalist who broke the story is apparently related to the accuser. It all makes me very uncomfortable about this particular allegation. - Bilby (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this is important, Bilby. Maybe we should wait and see, but I do think this should be included in the article. Look at Sophie Mirabella. Look at the 'controversy' there. Jarrodaus11 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Writing in a Narrative style / Leaving the Scope of the Article

The Pokies section is starting to become a problem.

User:Timeshift9 is writing the Pokies section in a style that's narrative, i.e., as something comes s/he adds a new sentence to the existing text in the section. This creates a situation where the text flows chronologically rather than being topical (i.e., every paragraph with a topic sentence and then each sentence relating solely to that topic). This creates paragraphs that are hard to read, such as Nick_Xenophon#2011-current where I note that Timeshift9 has added the same content, without the benefit of any editing.

We're also starting to put too much weight on the pokies section. That section is now the bulkiest section at the moment and we're leaving the scope of the article. The latest edit by User:Timeshift9 (diff) added points on:

• The Green's approach to the pokies issue;
• Clubs Australia amassing funds for electioneering on the issue.

...neither relate close enough to Andrew Wilkie.

The main point here is that we're starting to become a little sidetracked. I'm posting this to WP:AUS and WP:POLITICS for their input. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is an article dedicated to this... thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall: has Wilkie introduced a bill to parliament? Because if so, that seems to be the best subject for an article here. The UK and the US routinely have articles on individual bills, especially ones attracting as much attention as the pokies issue is. Frickeg (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a new article. I wonder if there's a decent article somewhere that we can use as a template (at least for things like section headings and so forth). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have also been beginning to think that the Pokies/Manditory Precommitment part of the Wilkie article has been outgrowing its relevance here. It is a significant issue and is probably well worth transferring to a separate article which would allow for more detailed information without people being able to delete arguments they don't like based on the issue not being relevant to the article they are posted in. Djapa Owen 15:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Has anything been done about moving the pokies section to a new article? Can the NPOV flag on that section still be justified? Djapa Owen (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection required

Someone is deleting large sections of this page without any discussion or regard for the processes used in the wikipedia community. This page needs protection until they stop this vandalism.

Done. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the confrontational attitude: it's pointless, and will lead you to being blocked from editing if it continues. Nick-D (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

OK then, sorry Nick-D but can you see the point that I am making.

Policies section pre-commitment paragraph is very biased.

Hi there,

This page seems to have been locked to editors. I have recently been reverting edits and seem to have been locked out from doing so for no apparent reason.

I have been fiercly trying to remove 3 sentances from the Pre-Commitment (Policies) paragraph and every time i seem to do this, a person has reverted my edits. I was removing 3 sentances due to the irrelevant, biased and outdated nature of them before I was rudely locked out from doing so.

The following 3 sentances should be removed for the following 3 reasons:

Sentences:

(1) In exchange for Wilkie's support, the Labor government are legislating for mandatory "pre-commitment" technology which would require persons using high-bet machines to pre-commit how much they are willing to bet on a machine before they begin play,[31] as well as introducing $1 maximum bet per spin machines which would not require pre-commitment, which Wilkie argues would be safer.

(2) The Abbott Coalition opposes the plans, with Abbott saying "it is not Liberal Party policy" and it will be "expensive and ineffective".

(3) According to polling, the Labor government's plans are supported by a clear majority of voters across the spectrum.

Reasoning

(1) The labour government did not follow thru on their commitment, see (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-21/wilkie-withdraws-support-over-broken-pokies-deal/3786040) consequently wilkie withdrew his support for the labour government.

(2) Irrelevant

(3) Irrelevant - this is biased text glorifying the labour government and has nothing to do with Wilkie or his policies.

Can someone please revert my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustme007 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I undid your edits because you were not editing, you were repeatedly deleting a whole section and that is not how the Wikipedia community do things. We discuss major changes and look for concensus.

You are correct that Labor renegged on their commitment and this is worth inclusion as it illustrates the mercenary nature of Australian major party politics today. It would be more accurate to edit the sentance to reflect this by saying "In exchange for Wilkie's support, the Labor government said they would legislate for mandatory "pre-commitment" technology which would require persons using high-bet machines to pre-commit how much they are willing to bet on a machine before they begin play,[31] as well as introducing $1 maximum bet per spin machines which would not require pre-commitment, which Wilkie argues would be safer. When they consolidated their position in parliament by placing Peter Slipper in the Speaker's chair they no longer needed Wilkie's support and withdrew support for his bill." I beleive Abbott's position is relevant and worth stating here. It is good that you have decided to log in so you can join the discourse and stop being a faceless vandal. Welcome to the community Itsjustme007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Appologies for not signing my last post. Djapa Owen 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Well its nice to see you finally start to discuss these issues instead of just rejecting my suggestions. I was only trying to remove the bias from this text and it really irritated me when I was labelled as irrelevant to this discussion and asked to maintain NPOV when this is what I was doing all along. For that reason, I incorrectly labeled you a labour party stooge and directed a personal attack for which I apologise.

My final observation is that the sentence "According to polling, the Labor government's plans are supported by a clear majority of voters across the spectrum." is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph. Instead it should read "According to polling, Wilkie's intentions are supported by a clear majority of voters across the spectrum."

Thanks for being more open about these issues. Itsjustme007 (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion that Labor deserves no credit for Wilkie's policies and have made the edit you suggest (although I have substituted policies for intentions). Part of what made me worried about your edits was the IP hopping going on because you were not logging in, that is how political fanatics operate deleting sections they don't agree with without logging in so they are accountable for their actions. I am glad this was not your intention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

TasWeekend article

Could be a good source: http://www.themercury.com.au/lifestyle/tasweekend-why-andrew-wilkie-is-always-up-for-the-good-fight/story-fnj64o6u-1227445912872 -- Chuq (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Killing the weight tag

There is no article on pokies in australia, or on pre-committment technology - so no content can be merged out. There is no issue with weight. -- Callinus (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Andrew Wilkie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111117020825/http://www.andrewwilkie.org:80/content/index.php/aw/issues_policy_extended/C18 to http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/index.php/aw/issues_policy_extended/C18
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120328055328/http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2215:andrew-wilkie-complains-about-opposition-to-his-poker-machine-plans&catid=80:politics&Itemid=120 to http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2215:andrew-wilkie-complains-about-opposition-to-his-poker-machine-plans&catid=80:politics&Itemid=120
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007030552/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8351969 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8351969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Wilkie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100827165541/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-194.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-194.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)