Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:53, 23 December 2007

	Australia portal WikiProject Australian politics 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 articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

Mass deletion of substubs

Referring to the 60 or so stub articles on former members of parliament created by User:Borgarde deleted by User:Rebecca, see [1], deletions on November 22.

Each of these articles contained:

A single sentence, e.g. "Geoffrey Giles was a Liberal representative for the South Australian Division of Wakefield from 1977 to 1983 in the Australian House of Representatives."
A succession box for Members for that electorate
Categories for party affiliation and electorate

Rebecca's justification for deleting them, given at User talk:Borgarde is:

"What I have a problem with is editors creating substubs that are worse than nothing in order to drive up their edit count. Amongst the tens of articles that Borgarde mass-created last night, there were articles at the wrong titles, and quite a number of articles that didn't mention things that the person was more notable for outside of a stint in federal politics. This happens when is so obsessed with driving up their edit count that they can't even do a basic Google search before creating an article on someone they've never heard of. Thus, as these substubs had no content apart from presenting what was already there in a less useful way, they have been deleted."

Now, I am under the impression that Federal MPs are considered notable by definition and am inclined to undelete all these articles, but thought I should see if Aus Politics project members had any thoughts first? --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't personally have deleted them but I agree that they offered very little that the reader wouldn't already have known in searching for the page. It would be more useful to create genuine stub articles one by one rather than mass-creating single line pieces. Perhaps the 60 names could be created as a "To do" list and we can collectively go through and create genuine articles on each? Euryalus (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a master to-do list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Politicians. —Moondyne 05:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they articles should at least exist as stubs. I created all the uncreated Federal MPs from South Australia and Tasmania ones first because they were the ones I had a genuine interest in. I recently improved Ralph Jacobi to an 'acceptable' stub level as per User:Rebecca. I see no problem with substubs, once an article is created for a person it appears higher in a google search, and anonymous editors can all of a sudden edit a page and add information that someone else has not. People can still work through a to-do list with the pages already created.--Borgarde^talk 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rebecca. Why create an article that gives only a name and the electorate they represented when a five minute search on a well known search engine can create a decent stub article? --Roisterer (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because then the article at least exists in a stub form. They were also some politicians that were hard enough to find sources for, like Elizabeth Harvey from Hawker. But if the article was created, visitors can expand it. --Borgarde^talk 06:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[replying to no-one in particular] Isn't the purpose of {{australia-politician-stub}} and Category:Australian politician stubs to give us an index of stubs to be expanded? As each stub-tagged page says: "This article about an Australian politician is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." —Moondyne 06:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Rebecca. These articles have no usefulness, and their appearance as blue links is less incentive to at least create a genuine stub. It doesn't take that much time to create a decent stub (or start) for these and I see no reason why sub-stubs should be substituted. Frickeg (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am late to this discussion, but I also agree with Rebecca. Wikipedia is not written for editors but for readers. A blue link is a promise to a Wikipedia user that a useful article can be found. Having a reader click through to find a sub-stub is wasting their time and breaking that promise. If an article with at least some context can't be created, it is better to wait until a reasonable stub can be created. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. how about I take a look through them and undelete the ones that contain content other than "X was the Y representative for the Division of Z from 19aa to 19bb", such as the aforementioned Elizabeth Harvey which contained a source that Borgarde had hunted up? --Stormie (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lindsay Affair

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the above article. It will need careful watching to avoid WP:BLP issues and maintain a neutral point of view. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ParlInfo former senators and members biographies

If anyone is interested, ParlInfo has here (select Parliamentary Handbook -> Biographies -> Former Senators and Members) a bunch of biographies of former Federal senators and members. I have created User:Stormie/Former MPs with Biogs matching them up with Wikipedia articles - a bunch of red links in there that those biogs could be used as sources for, also probably a number of existing articles that could be expanded. --Stormie (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty and Democracy Party

This article was very shoddily moved from Liberal Democratic Party (Australia) (a copy and paste job); I have suggested that it be moved from its current name (which includes an ampersand) at Wikipedia:Requested moves but would like to bring to an admin's attention the fact that its edit history is quite mangled. The talk page even has a note saying to see the old talk page for old discussions! Frickeg (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it would need RM's involvement, there's around 6 or 7 admins reading here and it isn't a terribly controversial situation. I would do it but I'm on a net cafe in Canberra. Orderinchaos 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 election result, & joining group

Hi, I would like to join the group, is it just a matter of sticking my name on the list? also, I have started adding the results of the election on the pages of MPs, using the following template:

In the 2007 Federal election, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX was re-elected to the seat of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX with a XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX% swing toward the Labor Party^[1].

If people want to use/criticise that, sounds good. rakkar (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright to me, but I really would wait until the election results have been declared (postal votes, etc., are still being counted) before adding these. Frickeg 00:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article request

Hi, I don't know where to put this, but is it possible for some one to create an article on Henry Tsang, a notable Chinese-Australian ALP politician [2].--60.242.159.224 (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As a serving member of the NSW parliament Henry Tsang is definitely on the list of people we want articles on. I'll have a go at it when I have a little free time if someone else doesn't do it first. Thanks for providing that reference, here's another: [3] --Stormie (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal votes

What is it about New South Wales? According to [4] (from here), the top 16 divisions with the highest informal percentage are all from NSW. What the? —Moondyne 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall...
NSW	4.85
NT	3.79
SA	3.76
QLD	3.58
WA	3.57
VIC	3.11
TAS	3.01
ACT	2.45
Total	3.86

—Moondyne 08:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty scary. I live in one of the top 10. The percentages of informal votes dwarf the swings from one party to another from election to election. I'd love to know how many informal votes were "deliberately" informal and how many were incorrectly filled-in ballots, but I don't suppose that would ever be counted.

Out of curiosity, I grabbed the Two-Party Preferred numbers from [5] and combined them with the informal numbers for some Original Research: there are 25 seats in which the number of informal votes was greater than the difference between the ALP and the Coalition's two-party preferred vote. --Stormie (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutineers will look at informals and usually get a good idea of whether they are deliberate or incorrect informals; Cheryl Kernot's election in Dickson was partly down to a scrutineer looking closely at informals and realising that a particular type of informals could actually be counted. --Roisterer (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention possible confusion with the optional preferential voting rules applied in state elections, but you would expect that to effect Queensland as well as New South Wales. When it comes to the Senate, it is Victoria that stands out, for some reason. JPD (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The informal vote in Blaxland and the State seat of Bankstown has occasionally outpolled the Coalition, mostly a result of the extraordinary concentration of non-English speakers in the electorate. From memory it was 23% on the 1991 State election, exacerbated by the Greiner Government's sudden introduction of compulsory preferential voting. There's obviously a proportion of deliberate errors such as all the "free Alfie Langer" ballots in 1996, but I'd argue the bulk of NSW informals compared to other States are errors due to language difficulties and confusion over the different State and federal systems. I'd say from personal observation in scrutineering ballots that around 1 in 20 informals are deliberate. Euryalus (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the booth I scrutineered at most informals were either completely blank (about half), had a 1 or x in one box only (about another quarter), with sloganeering, artwork, jokes and non-standard numbering making up the rest. That was a NSW booth with an informal rate of 5% in a fairly non-ethnically-mixed area. Back in WA another friend scrutineered at a booth in a northern suburb which swung to the Liberals where the informal rate was 10% and *most* were abusive (said scrutineer was quite shocked at the intensity of some of them) with only a few clearly mistakes. Orderinchaos 08:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please delete the Scope section?

This doesn't ever get updated so it should be removed. Timeshift 11:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: One Australia policy

Way back in 1988, John Howard released an immigration and ethnic affairs policy document which he titled "One Australia", which called for a reduction in Asian immigration. The policy was controversial in its time, possibly resulting in Howard losing the Liberal leadership in 1989.. The article is here-> One Australia policy. The article is currently listed for deletion. I put out this message to get a wider group of people commenting on whether or not the article should be deleted, and ask you to comment on the AfD page here.

The article previously was longer (covering other matters) and had a less savoury title, which has now been changed. If you commented before, please comment again (because of those changes). Please be civil. Thank you, Lester 12:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Education, Science and Training (Australia)

It would be good if an administrator could move this to Minister for Education (Australia) (one of Julia's new titles), which is currently prevented by a redirect.--Grahamec 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the redirect for speedy deletion as uncontroversial housekeeping. Hopefully this raises enough of a flag. Euryalus 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is 'Religion' being placed in every politician's infobox?

Fraser, Howard, Keating, Menzies... the list goes on and on.
Every infobox of every politician is being changed to include the religion. It seems unnecessary to me, as many of these politicians are not practicing the faith, so what they were born into has no relevance in the infobox. Look at Keating, he was not a practicing Catholic, and his Prime Ministership had no policies related to Catholicism.Lester 21:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Remove. Timeshift 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, although the pedant in me notes that when Keating was asked why he was a Republican he claimed it was due to his Catholicism. --Roisterer 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole article to mention that in ;-) Timeshift 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support removal of this information from the info boxes. It is not something we focus on as defining our politicians - if relevant mention in the article. Infoboxes are too lengthy anyway and should focus on important defining details. May be relevant for some countries and therefore inclusion as a parameter is justified, but exisiting as a parameter doesn't mean it should be filled in. --Matilda ^talk 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Agreeing with Matilda and Timeshift etc) Should be in article text if it's important, which isn't often. Infoboxes are for key summary information. Orderinchaos 02:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About a day or so ago, some enterprising fellow added religion to every single Prime Minister of Australia. I now have all 26 watchlisted. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't "added" - they were put back as they were there in the first place. This is to ensure consistency with leaders around the world, and Australia is odd at the moment at not including these things - there has often been a push to remove anything religious by the atheist Wiki editors who want to secularise the encyclopedia. I agree that it should only be there if relevant where the leader has made their religious beliefs a prominent part of their life - something like Hawke's atheism or Rudd's Christianity is important, I would argue - but someone like Keating who didn't make much of it, it's not relevant. JRG (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of HoS in PM infoboxes

Crazy edit wars: I can't believe someone went through 25+ articles, putting the monarchy in the infobox. Then, someone else must go through those articles and remove them again, like plucking burrs from a sock. It would have been better to discuss here whether such a style change is required, before doing it to so many articles. Lester 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a call for the inclusion of the relevant Head of State to be included into the infoboxes for Australian PMs, per that followed by UK and Canadian (to use two examples of several offered). Following Lester's suggestion in the talk of Kevin Rudd it is better to discuss here rather than over there, especially given that it will potentially impact 26 articles. Personally I believe we should have a consistency of style, following on from the many and various MOS' and hence (following that in other commonwealth countries) the HoS should be included. Look forward to comment by this Wikiproject. Shot info (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested then that instead of Monarch, we put the Governor-General instead, being that he is more applicable to Australia in particular. I know the other Commonwealth realms PM's articles have the head of state in the infobox - indeed, so do all republic PM articles - however, Elizabeth II herself does not apply in particular. She and her family did not appoint Kevin Rudd or all of the others, the respective Governor-Generals did, albeit with her "power". If we're gonna have the head of state in the infobox, it might as well be the Australian head of state representative. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Head of State & Governor General should be removed from those infoboxes, indeed all PM infoboxes on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor General is not a head of state, and should not be included. We're getting a lot of extraneous information put in those infoboxes: Queens, GGs, Flags, etc. It is an infobox about the person the article is about, so it should be limited to information about that person. If people want to read about the Queen or her representatives, there are other places they can go. This other information is included in the Australia wikipedia article. Lets not put it in every political article. Considering that both the monarchy and the flag are controversial in Australia, it could be considered POV to place them in a myriad of other articles that are not directly related. Lets leave the PM's infobox to the PM's info. Lester 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~:::I agree. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~On further thought, perhaps having the 'Governor General' listed is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Category for deletion debate~~
Wikiproject members may be interested in the following discussion: Category:Electoral divisions always held by the Australian Labor Party - Discussion--Matilda ^talk 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wilfrid Kent Hughes: Towards GA status~~
Hey people. Inspired by the Triple Crown, I am working towards my first GA article, Wilfrid Kent Hughes. Not having produced a GA article, it would be great if people could have a look at it and provide some feedback. I realise that there are some references I still need to dig up. Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. We should start a writing comp for WP:AUS! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really have to get myself into gear and do the Colin Jamieson article. Orderinchaos 06:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember trying to make at least the ADB references compliant with WP:MOS and link them to the online articles, but they have been reverted.--Grahame (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Charles Kingston moved~~
I see that someone has made Charles Kingston a disambiguation page and moved Kingston to Charles Kingston (politician) but didn't move any of the links. I would argue that Kingston is the most famous of the namesakes and should be at Charles Kingston, leaving the others to be noted at a disambiguation page. Id this a realistic suggestion in this situation? --Roisterer (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The politician Kingston was a Premier, Minister in the first Federal parliament and introduced the first laws for female suffrage. The most notable of the others is Charles W. Kingston who founded a breakaway sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints and whose name is still occasionally invoked in US polygamy debates. Both are notable but I would argue that the first has made a greater and more enduring contribution to the historical record than the second. Also, the name recognition and national impact for Premier Kingston is significantly greater within his country than that of Kingston (religious leader) in his. Other views welcome, as always. Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it has now been moved back, but the talk page seems to have been lost in the process (and may have only included project ratings).--Grahame (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 2007~~
~~Reversion of vandals appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~How to fix Importance table on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics?~~
~~The table says we have one FA of top importance. Per Category:FA-Class Australian politics articles, none are. How can I edit this table? Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition is a featured list and top importance - that's where the confusion lies. The table can't be edited, as it's bot updated. Orderinchaos 06:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the talk page, it's rated high not top. And yes i'm aware of why it says that. But i'm sure many other casual visitors arent, and requires some sort of rectification. Timeshift (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's high for Australia, top for this project - look at the categories at the bottom. Orderinchaos 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Electoral district categories~~
Is Category:Electoral districts of Gold Coast a good idea? We have Category:Electoral districts of Queensland and similar for each state, but is breaking them down any further really necessary? —Moondyne 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be what they call a "trivial intersection". And it is poorly named too: the "electoral districts of Gold Coast" would be districts that elect members to the Parliament of Gold Coast; this is rather "electoral districts of Queensland located in Gold Coast", an entirely different kettle of fish. Hesperian 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Zap. —Moondyne 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Charles Court~~
~~Charles Court died overnight.[6] There is likely to be a series of obituaries etc. which may be useful in expanding the article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Odd timing, right as I'm beginning the 1977 state election article and finishing up the one on his opposite number. RIP, I guess. Orderinchaos 23:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the first one already. Lots of detail in it, I guess it was sitting on the shelf waiting for the day. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True - he's been in poor health for some time. This one wasn't terribly detailed - I have all the Political Chronicles and a couple of books on the 1977 election, also have his page from the Biographical Register. Not sure if I'll find the time but if anyone wants a scan of the Biographical Register pages drop me an email. Orderinchaos 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They split the obit from the article after I linked to it. It is better than our article however. Where we need to be eventually is in a situation where newspaper obit writers get their information from Wikipedia rather than the reverse! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "Australian Electoral Commission summary of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Federal Election 2007"]. Australian Electoral Commission. 2007-11-25. Retrieved 2007-11-26. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2007_Election-1] [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "Australian Electoral Commission summary of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Federal Election 2007"]. Australian Electoral Commission. 2007-11-25. Retrieved 2007-11-26. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 Reversion of vandals appreciated. Thanks. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 08:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-== Conflicts of interest on oz politics articles ==
-I recently discovered that one of our regular contributors was quite high up in a former influential federal political party, and it got me thinking. Why is it that anyone can substantially edit or change articles without declaring that they have a major conflict of interest? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-::If I joined a branch and was there a year or two and did work to keep the thing going, even I could stand for election to be a branch official. It's hardly party hierarchy. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:If you feel that an editor, any editor, has a COI issue, then report it [[WP:COIN|here]].  Otherwise we [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]].  We comment on the contributions, not who the contributor is (or was) in real life.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-::I don't wish to go through the formal COI procedures. Their edits aren't as bad as some of the COI reports there, but nevertheless that is not my issue. My issue generally, is that people who have substantial connections to political parties and edit wikipedia should declare so. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::Would it make life easier for us all if all editors where members of the current ruling party in Australia?  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::Absolutely they should declare... COI is probably one of the only things that really disturbs me about Wikipedia.  But if you do have a strong feeling about it, you should file a COI report.  And Shot info, that's not the point, in fact I would be very distressed, equally so, if a Labor Party staffer was editing articles pertaining to Australian politics under the guise of an established account.  It's just not on.  [[User:Deus Ex Machina|<b><font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">DEVS EX MACINA</font></b>]] <sub>[[User talk:DeusExMachina|pray]]</sub> 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::''COI is probably one of the only things that really disturbs me about Wikipedia.'' - I couldn't have said it better. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::::But where do you stop.  Should labour voters not be able to edit WP articles on the ALP?  Are Liberal voters allowed?  Are members of the ALP allowed to edit here?  What about at Gough Witlam?  Are South Australians voters allowed to edit articles on South Australian Elections?  Where does it stop?  This is why WP has the formal procedures to show due process.  Otherwise we fail to assume good faith, and we don't examine edits on their merits, but because they come from an editor.  Which is not what we do.  If somebody ''has'' a case to answer, then COIN it.  Otherwise it's just idle speculation which has no place here in Wikipedia.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 23:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::::To be frankly honest it's safe to say about 75% of editors in this project operate with *some* level of conflict of interest. That's going to be inevitable - the people most interested in politics as a subject are probably more likely than the rest of the population to get involved in it. I worked at a booth not only last election but at every election state and federal bar one since 1996, and not always for the same party. I've met a list of politicians that reads like a who's who of leadership over the past 15 years federally and within WA, I've been at a Bob Brown rally, a Bob Hawke speech that appeared on national TV, several John Howard events, a Peter Garrett community forum, am on first name terms with a Labor and a Liberal Senator from my state, have lunched with a former Democrat senator from my state (at his expense, too) and with a former Green senator (less generous, sadly), and I've even eaten a hot dog and onions prepared by Pauline Hanson at one of those meetings where people got pelted with eggs on the way in. The issue is not does someone have a conflict of interest but can someone manage it. I think we can all think of one or two people who have had issues with this, but in general most people edit neutrally and can distinguish fact from fiction, verification from belief and hot air from reliable source. If someone does not do this, then we approach them and failing that report them. If they simply have a conflict then all power to them if they can edit an encyclopaedia according to Wikipedia's [[WP:5|core policies and guidelines]]. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 06:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-I think you're mistaking that we are advocating those with a COI shouldn't edit wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that and I don't believe others are. My question again - why is it that anyone can substantially edit or change articles without declaring that they have a major conflict of interest such as being a high-up in the administration of a political party? Your examples are a bit silly too - people who vote for and/or are members of the party do not have a COI assuming they are not in an admin/decision making role in the party. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 00:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:My examples are meant to be silly.  After all, we all have POV which implies we all have potential COI (after all, your user page ''could'' indicate that you are a supporter if not a member of the ALP - now for me personally, I don't care, but for others demanding you to make a COI statement, you ''could'' be in a quandary and ''may'' have to tell a fib).  Your question is irrelevant don't you think?  Let's say they are "high-up in the administration of a political party".  What then?  Because then you say "you're mistaking that we are advocating those with a COI shouldn't edit wikipedia".  What ''are'' you trying to say?  Are you saying that COI needs to be declared, but nothing is going to happen?  Or are you saying that COI needs to be be declared and those with the COI are blocked from editing certain articles?  It's all fine and dandy that you wish people to out themselves and/or declare interests, but why...to what purpose...and what restriction?  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::I'm saying anyone can edit anything on wikipedia, but those involved with a party beyond simple membership (and no i'm not a member) should declare so. COI is not the same as bias, please don't confuse it. Members and supporters of parties does not constitute COI. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 00:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::Very interesting, thank you for formalising you position on the subject.  FWIW, I believe everybody can edit WP, except for those who have a clear COI and declared so via COIN.  Of course if people wish to self-declare that's up to them but I'm not certainly going to insist the Wiki-police visit people in the night to check COI.  If a person with a COI makes good edits, he/she makes good edits.  If they make bad edits, they make bad edits.  There are no "COI edits" - only good and bad ones.  Assuming that edits made by COI are inherently "bad" edits is failing to assume good faith.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::This user in particular has hot and cold days in terms of their edits and positions. They've also been banned for an entire year in the past from editing oz politics articles by Jimbo Wales himself, and banned for a further two months for wiki-stalking, bad faith, and sockpuppetry (I have the arbcom URL but won't give it as to avoid outing this user). But that is not my point. My point is that as he was intimately involved with the running of the party in question, and he edits australian politics articles, he should be required to state so on his user page. But it's obvious we've both expressed our views on this, so let's open up the floor to others and their opinions, shall we? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::::Timeshift, please don't abuse our's and the Community's intelligence, you are starting to [[WP:GAME|game]] the system here.  I would ask you to stop as other editors have been blocked for doing what you are doing.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::::Gaming usually involves:
-:::::::Appeal to (or claiming support from) policy for some action or stance, which the user knows does not reflect the true intent and spirit of the policy, or
-:::::::Misrepresenting policy in a way which the user knows will harm Wikipedia or its editorial environment in practice.
-:::::::Now shh, you give me a headache. The only reason you're going on about this is because you support the person in question. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::::::Yes, ''Misrepresenting policy''.  I don't know who you mean with regards to "support the person in question" as I don't know who this is, but I think you confusing failing to follow your POV as "support for the other side".  Please show a bit of good faith because with your gaming, its making it difficult that your not editing disruptively to prove a point.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::There are quite a few people from political parties who edit the political articles in Wikipedia. I don't know if a distinction should be drawn between someone being a simple member, to others who have been high-ranking officials within a party, who edit that party's article, and also edit articles about other politicians from other parties. I think that gets pretty well into CoI land. Personally, I think party membership should be declared. Remember that [http://www.smh.com.au/am/2007/08/24/ headline in the SMH] about party people editing the John Howard article. And that was only found from IP address searches. The people with Wiki usernames are harder to find.'''[[User:Lester|<span style="color:green">Lester</span>]]''' 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-It probably would benefit editors if they review what Wikipedia calls [[WP:COI]] such that we have a common baseline.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:What point are you making? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::No point, other than what we think "COI" is - could differ from what Wikipedia calls COI. [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::This regular troublemaker was high up in the administration of an oz political party. Simple. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 01:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::"Troublemaker" is a bit unfair.  "Controversial editor" will do.  [[User:Deus Ex Machina|<b><font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">DEVS EX MACINA</font></b>]] <sub>[[User talk:DeusExMachina|pray]]</sub> 01:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::Either way, it's [[WP:NPA]] and really, uncalled for.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::::Calling someone a controversial editor (particularly when they've been blocked by Jimbo Wales before) is not a personal attack, and calling them a troublemaker is pushing the line but not worth throwing that policy page at someone as if it invalidates their entire argument.  [[User:Deus Ex Machina|<b><font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">DEVS EX MACINA</font></b>]] <sub>[[User talk:DeusExMachina|pray]]</sub> 01:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-Let's call him "Anon" and since I have no idea who you are talking about, I'm going to ask you to show some good faith and not engage in an attack of an unknown and unnamed editor.  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:WP:NPA - Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 01:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::''The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of '''foolish''' or '''boorish''' behavior, or '''even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee''', as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a '''positive''' online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia''.  Feel free to keep up the positive atmosphere boys. [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::Yes, but where is the personal attack to which makes that para apply? I re-state: Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-If we ask people to declare their interests if they are involved "beyond simple membership", how "high up" and "involved" should someone be to declare their interests? How much do people know about the internal workings of political parties anyway? [[User:Barrylb|Barrylb]] ([[User talk:Barrylb|talk]]) 01:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:You just said it. Beyond simple membership. And if there are any grey areas, case by case clarification could be done. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 01:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::I am willing to declare that I am a member of a political party and I reckon I've been involved beyond simple membership. [[User:Barrylb|Barrylb]] ([[User talk:Barrylb|talk]]) 03:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::Opps, wrong fish caught I believe.  Will be interesting to see how this goes :-)  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 03:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-Lester's got a head full of hate on this. He's referring to me, but I'm not a member of any political organisation. I've admitted to joining the Australian Republican Movement in the past, but it's been several years since I was a member. My major contribution was that we should attract interest and members by professing to put the "Pub" into "Republican", and we had a great evening at King O'Malley's Irish pub in town at which some prominent political author spoke and we all had a wonderful time and we all drank far too much Guinness. But apart from that it was all talky-talk and no action, and I gave up on them. I think that they are still holding meetings and producing discussion papers.
-The late lamented Adam Carr was a member of the ALP and edited Australian political articles. Nobody had much of a problem with that.
-As for being banned, it's a matter of record. Happy to be held up as an example of what happens when you get too personally involved and don't listen to good advice freely offered. But here I am, a year on, happily rehabilitated. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::Just to set the record straight, Adam Carr was and is a staffer of an ALP Member of the House of Reps. He was always clear about that and did not edit in areas where he did have a COI. I do not think being a member of the ALP is a COI. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke|talk]]) 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:''He's referring to me, but I'm not a member of any political organisation.'' Hahahaha. Well technically you're correct as the party is defunct. The diffs have been deleted, but a review of what is left at ANi will give the general gist of it.  [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:Lester?  Or Timeshift?  Either way, would you care to refactor your initial sentence to make it nicer :-)  Thanks [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 01:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::Regardless of how they dress it up, their attitudes are clear. My first edit to Wikipedia was in 2004. Since then, I have not been a member of any political party or organisation. I'd like to hear Lester start making noises of apology. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 02:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::Stranger things have happened (and continue per below).  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::I doubt [[Malcolm Fraser]] is a current member of a political party too. Or [[Pauline Hanson]] for that matter. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::Holy doly, it's the thought police.  So ex. members are on the COI list... Why not just say "Sorry Pete, I don't think your allowed to edit WP anymore" and be done with it??????  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::a) The ANi shows where your allegiances lie - Skyring/Pete. b) Please quote to me where I have said at any stage I advocated that COI people shouldn't be editing wikipedia. Thankyou. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::Malcolm is a life member of the Libs. As for Pauline, I would imagine that she is a member of [http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/ her own political party.] Perhaps reality is different in Timeshiftland? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::My point stands. COI doesn't stop just because association does. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-b) I'm being factious.  After all, to what point is the fact that [[Malcolm Fraser]] is a current member of a political party too. Or [[Pauline Hanson]] for that matter?  And who cares what "allegiances" lie.  You think that it is COI to be a former "high ranking" member of a no defunct political party?  Because if you aren't saying that, the totality of your edits is saying that.  If you aren't saying that....please be clear lest you are misinterpreted.  Please state under what conditions you feel are a conflict of interest (as they appear to differs from Wikipedia's) and if there is a conflict, what should happen.  You aren't saying that, instead you seem to be on some odd witchhunt against another editor.  Admins are starting to notice.  I suggest you be clearer with what you are trying to say so that we don't have to look at the totality of your edits?  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:I'll re-state for the 60 millionth time, I can't believe you still don't get this. If someone has been substantially involved with a party beyond simple membership, then they should declare it. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::WHY!  And if they say so, WHAT CANNOT THEY THEN DO!  How many times do you need to be asked this? [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::Because I believe that to be a considerable COI to the detriment of the quality of wikipedia, and allows further rightful analysis of the content of edits made by these users. And for the 60 million and oneth time, I'm not advocating a removal of any access or use of wikipedia for these COI editors. Now how about you stop asking me the same questions, and let other contributors have their say to this discussion. Thanks. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::''allows further rightful analysis of the content of edits made by these users''  So you do advocate we suspend good faith for these users.  Thank you, you have dodged around this question previously.  FWIW, this discussion is pointless as it contradicts what we should follow in [[WP:COI]].  "rightful" - in whose's mind?  [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 02:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::I believe the monitoring of edits of contributors with COI is completely a seperate issue from assuming good faith. You can assume good faith in your interactions with users but at the same time monitor the edits of contributors with COI. You obviously are unable to seperate such issues, or, are getting way too defensive of your mate. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::"A considerable [[WP:COI|COI]]", Timeshift says. If one were editing an article about a company in which one holds significant numbers of shares, there might be a conflict of interest. If one was a member or an official of a political party currently seeking to attract votes, there might be a conflict of interest. Me, I'm not a member of a political party. Certainly not any current political party. This yapping about conflict of interest is a thin disguise for a personal attack. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 02:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::Call it what you will, I believe if someone has been substantially involved with a party beyond simple membership, then they should declare it. We know what my views are, and what yours are. But that won't stop you continuing to reply to me and making it difficult for others to contribute to this discussion as well, will it? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 02:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::::"Call it what you will". Thanks for the implicit admission that there is no [[WP:COI|COI]]. Are you done now? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::::Hilarious. ''Call it what you will'' was a response to ''a thin disguise for a personal attack''. What was that about reality again? [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 03:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::::::"Call it what you will, I believe if someone has been substantially involved with a party beyond simple membership, then they should declare it." A reasonable person would say you were talking about conflict of interest. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 03:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::::::Indeed. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-This is a non-issue and those making it one, those throwing around WP shortcuts, etc, seriously need to get over it. If there is a serious conflict, we'll deal with it. I have known about this situation for a long time now and I had obviously been on the lookout for conflicts arising from it, and I have seen none. Yes, people have a political slant, but that's not caused by a conflict of interest. You could broadly characterise Timeshift, or myself, or Lester amongst others as broadly speaking coming from the left of politics in an Australian context, while some of the others may well be from the right - that's personal opinion/conviction/belief and if we were to say that was a conflict, we'd probably have to ban everyone from editing political or indeed any controversial articles at all. COI issues are mainly either self/org-promoting or censoring in nature. We have seen that from one or two correspondents but not the ones in this debate. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 06:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-Again words are being put in my mouth. Those of concern have as much right to edit the articles I do. I have never said they don't and am not seeking any sort of reduced access for people with a substantial COI such as party machine involvement. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 09:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:I'm not really sure what the issue is, then. We could insist that people declare their interests, but that would just result in people running around trying to prove that people who hadn't declared a COI should have, and probably not help us much. With or without declarations, we have to watch edits. Those editing with conflict of interest usually stand out without a declaration. In the case mentioned here, there is no evidence that Skyring, despite his controversial history, has edited with a conflict of interest (his particular republican "biases" have come out, but that is a much more common matter). He hasn't even really tried to hide his historical connections - as well as the picture on his user page, he drew public attention ''to'' his "outing", suggesting that he was more interested in pointing out <s>what he calls the "head full of hate" behind Lester's actions</s> inappropriate behaviour from those disagreeing with him, rather than maintaining privacy. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 11:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-::(Just a clarification - are you sure it was Lester? Brendan was the one who got blocked for revealing the information. I could be mistaken though as I have only somewhat followed the incident) [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 11:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::(Sorry, you're right. I've corrected my comment.) [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 11:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-I really can't see too much potential for COI in editing political articles. Anything too blatant is going to get jumped on fairly quickly, which is one reason why it's important to have a good spread of opinions on WP. So long as we have due regard for each other and or readers, it really doesn't matter what our personal beliefs are, we seem to get it more or less right.
-I've mentioned the example of Adam Carr, ALP staffer, who I've repeatedly praised as an excellent editor who really knew his stuff, and repeatedly slammed as someone who just couldn't seem to get along with his fellows. Adam's incivility was legendary. Adam no longer edits here. Was it COI or wikistress that saw us lose this excellent editor? --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 16:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-:'''Credibility At Stake''' I did not know that Wikipedian Adam Carr is an ALP staffer. This is the first I've heard of it, as I don't remember seeing that on his Userpage. So that means we have had Labor Party people editing the Labor Party article, we've had Liberal Party people editing the Liberal Party article, we've had Family First people editing the Family First article, and we've had One Nation people editing the One Nation article. I think the Conflict of Interest in all those political articles is truly a concern for the credibility of Wikipedia.'''[[User:Lester|<span style="color:green">Lester</span>]]''' 01:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-::Adam Carr was always upfront about his COI. And that is fine by me, as i'm not advocating removing any access for these persons. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 01:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-::But consider the alternative: Liberals editing the Labor Party article, Greens burning the midnight oil to tell the truth about the Nationals, the Democrats belting out the true history of the DLP. When you get down to it, there's no way we can prevent COI. Brother, just go down to the nearest internet cafe, order a frappucino with mint sauce and untraceably set the record straight about that evolution hoax. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::It's also my observation that quite a few people involved in the Conservative political parties are more interested in censorship of political events in the past they'd rather forget, than addition of content. If there are events in our history that are widely reported in reputable newspapers, books and magazines, that there should not be people involved in political parties trying to censor it out. I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that there's nothing that can be done about it. It becomes even more of a worry when there are groups of people involved in political parties gaining larger numbers claiming their numbers prove consensus.'''[[User:Lester|<span style="color:green">Lester</span>]]''' 01:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-::::Lester, it's not just you. I've '''always''' been interested in taking an axe to the edits of extremists. From cleansing the rantings of gun nuts in the Port Arthur Massacre to stomping on the myth that Whitlam brought the troops home from Vietnam. If you persist in editing Australian political articles with an entirely one-sided slant, you can expect people of other persuasions to come along and balance your biases. Are you still smarting over that Pauline Hanson DNA test rubbish? Would you prefer that it be included so long as I was able to headline Kevin Rudd eating his own earwax? Is that your idea of balance?
-::::We're writing an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Let's leave out the strip clubs. --[[User:Skyring|Pete]] ([[User talk:Skyring|talk]]) 03:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-:::::Am in agreement with this stance. We may not always agree on the politics, but if we can agree on Wikipedia policies, who cares? At the end of the day balance is the most important element. If someone from Finland comes on wanting to know a bit about our politics and people, they should be able to then walk away and know a bit about it, without having to deal with the usual slash and innuendo that seems to come with the territory in politics. I confess to sometimes doing this with foreign politics - I had a very interesting read around the DPJ articles for Japan a couple of nights ago and you can actually see very well written articles with some random local crap tacked on here and there - I suppose others would see ours the same way. One of my still-to-do projects is an article on Brian Burke, a man who the media worshipped in 1986 without exception and demonised in 2006 without exception, the truth is somewhere in the middle (most of the bad stuff *and* most of the good stuff is oddly enough true), and should make for an interesting telling. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 07:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 == How to fix Importance table on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics]]? ==