This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Wilkie article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active 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. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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)
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:
Therefore I would say that Wilkie has almost certainly let his membership lapse. --Roisterer 17:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Gunns Pulp mill has know been granted the go-ahead by the Federal Government [1]. 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[2][3]. 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)).
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)).
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)
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:
...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)
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)
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.
OK then, sorry Nick-D but can you see the point that I am making.
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)
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)
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)
((cite web))
: |first=
missing |last=
(help)
((cite web))
: |first=
missing |last=
(help); External link in |title=
(help)
((cite web))
: |first=
missing |last=
(help)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)