Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair

Timeline

This article will be in a state of some flux for a while. I'll move material in the existing lead into a text (rather than table) timeline format. Although this is part of a wider affair involving the HSU, it appears more and more likely that it is Craig Thomson's part which will prove more important in a political sense, given the need to convince the other independents to support him. We also need a current event note on the top - I'll dig one up in a moment. --Pete (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC) So tempted to use the "current disaster" template! Which is what it is for the whole nation, really, given that it strikes deep into the heart of worker collective representation, not to mention the ongoing crisis of confidence in Parliament. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC) I have "timelined" the material ported over from the CT article. The next step is to look at the FWA report, which has extremely detailed descriptions and documents on the relevant events. Following this, I shall add in the events of the past few days, which continue the spate of front page stories. --Pete (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Peter. There was a problem with the citation for April 6, 2009. I wasn't sure what that source you were trying to cite was but it was showing as an error in the ref list. The date is mentioned in the Nassios report so I just changed the cite to that for now. Feel free to change it to whatever you want. Also, at the end of the sentence under 26 March 2010, there's a "(43)"...I had no idea what that meant. Cheers, Sarah 13:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Page 43 of the report. It would be handy if I could just use one ref and qualify it inline by the page number - the chronology in the report goes for over 40 pages!!! Thanks for the help, I'm working on this but it's a little daunting given the wealth of material, the changing status and the massive media interest and opinions. But it's important to tell the story accurately as a ready reference. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair Work Australia report

I'm moving steadily through the report. It's kind of depressing, reading it. Nassios has identified a great number of specific failings of Craig Thomson, rather than the most sensational reported in the media, such as payments for travel for non-HSU members, or payments to football clubs, or train hire which go well beyond his approval to spend money on general administration, or failure to manage the union office efficiently. When pressed by Nassios, Thomson fails to give any specific responses, provide details or identify individuals. Nassios, in comparison, provides forensic details. Pages of them. Chapters and annexes of lists and amounts and dates. Thomson promises reports and investigations which never eventuate. There's no oversight or approval for hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenditure and he just runs the finances into the ground. It's appalling.

However, I'm sticking to events and statements which are identifiable both in the report and in media reports. This is not an article on the FWA report, or Craig Thomson in general, but on the political scandal, and on that point there seems to be a lot of media opinion (and from labor insiders) that this if it doesn't sink Gillard entirely, will be a serious iceberg to deal with.

As for writing the article, there is a huge variety of major news stories to use as sources. This isn't some scuffle of infighting in some minor union, this is seen by the media as a big thing, and it has generated front page stories for three years now. This is already a Watergate-level scandal. --Pete (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to Parliament

I watched the speech and found it carefully crafted, based around the legitimate concept that depriving the voters of an electorate of their representation without some due process would be improper. The pressure on he and his family is undoubtedly heavy, but I think it a bit unfair to blame media and Opposition for events that occurred entirely within the union and ALP before he entered Parliament. He spent comparatively little time on the specific allegations and provided few details. I think that they were pretty much all denied or refuted before the day was out. I was particularly struck by his claim that photo-id would not be specifically recorded, and yet this is exactly what occurs in brothels and escort agencies. Merridy Eastman, in her book There's a Bear in There (and He Wants Swedish), describes the process of checking photo-ID and recording it (in green ink, no less), while Andrew Bolt prints excerpts from the bank's operating manual which instructs users to check ID and record the details. It is standard practice. Bolt also highlights three examples of calls to escort agencies made from rooms where Thomson only booked the one room for himself, rather than the block bookings he claims he made. The political impact of the speech in the context of this article on the affair is two-fold - he (and Gillard) survived the day, but the production of details that can be checked stirs the "Inspector Clouseaus" of the press gallery into further action and further front page news stories, which naturally increases the impact on the saga and this article. --Pete (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC) "I watched the speech too, and noted he gave what was a confession on some issues. He didn't directly state it, but he highlighted that the union was a mess before he assumed office and he worked to improve things. It may be inferred he did not improve them enough, but that is a defence and a confession. One does not know how it will end, but it is clear that he is under intense pressure and his 'support' from the ALP is not benefitting him. DDB (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who seriously suggests using Andrew Bolt as a reliable source is unfit to edit this article; there are numerous distortions of fact already present in this article, which violates Wikipedia BLP. For example, the Wikipedia editor who wrote that Thomson was 'forced out' of the ALP, when the ABC article referenced by the editor clearly states that Thomson's ALP membership was 'suspended', and that Thomson himself requested for his membership to be suspended. 121.216.230.139 (talk)

The issue is sensitive at the moment, and subject to BLP protocols. We should source everything. I'd like to see a balanced coverage on this, consistent with NPOV. Removing sources because you don't agree with them is not the best course of action here - we have an absolute smorgasbord of sources and if an editor feels that one view is predominating, add one from a different point of view. However, I strongly caution against using blogs as sources when we have mainstream media sources. Unless there is a good reason to use a minor source, such as the one publishing an email from Craig Thomson stating that he was "very happy" with the settlement. There currently seem to be about four POVs in general currency - that of the ALP, Coalition, media and Craig Thomson. We're not here to crucify the guy, nor whitewash him, but to tell the story of the political scandal which is filling the front pages. I might note that according to the various online polls, the percentage of respondents supporting/believing Craig Thomson is about 10%, so he's very much an extreme or fringe POV here.

What's the significance of the "Thompson/Thomson" spelling? Thomson himself isn't disputing that it was his credit card being used, presumably the issuer misspelt his name, which seems to be an extremely common error. --Pete (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The misspelled name on the credit card used to make the imprint on the franking slip allegedly sourced from "Keywed" indicates it is a blatant forgery. Craig Thomson disputes he was at the brothel and thus disputes he signed that fraudulent franking slip. I am uncertain if you lack the intelligence, or the integrity, or both, to avoid presenting this obviously tainted exhibit as a reliable source in Wikipedia. The only reason you would present it is to support and further the Liberal-National Party's defamation campaign. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the two Andrew Bolt articles to which the anon editor above takes such exception to, one of them consists almost entirely of Thomson's misleading email to Labor colleagues, in which he claims he was "very happy" with "settlements" of defamation actions launched against HSU and Fairfax. In point of fact he withdrew both claims after considerable legal expense and received no money, no retraction, no apology. Fairfax continued to print the allegations against Thomson on the basis that they were factual and was borne out by the Fair Work Australia report. This is critical to what makes this affair a political scandal - the Sydney Morning Herald printed some damning allegations, the story became front page news and Thomson's bluster and the ALP's attempts to hose the thing down add to the general interest, providing the twin elements of personal involvement, with Craig Thomson and his troubles one focus, and the survival of the unpopular Gillard government the other.

The second Bolt article second Bolt article rebuts claims made in Thomson's speech to Parliament, contrasting Thomson's statements with the evidence provided by Fair Work Australia and others. While Thomson's speech was made under Parliamentary privilege (and has itself spawned yet another inquiry), it is not exempt from scrutiny and rebuttal.

Who says the purported email on Bolt's blog is genuinely from Craig Thomson MP? Where are the message headers for that purported email? Given Andrew Bolt's established court record for reckless dishonestly, blatant libel, and sloppy, unprofessional research, any so-called evidence from Bolt must be held to the strictest standards of proof, or be deleted per BLP. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

While BLP must be observed, and any unsourced negative information swiftly removed, this does not apply to sourced statements. NPOV provides for presentation of diverse and contradictory views, and we may certainly give any views in support of Thomson due prominence. However, with public credibility in Thomson's statements running at 5-10%,[1] his views should be treated as a minority or fringe opinion.

Regarding the wording of how Thomson came to leave the ALP, there is a conflict here.[2] A great many sources state that he was "forced out of the ALP"[3][4], or that Prime Minister Gillard "dumped" Thomson. Thomson claims he stood aside voluntarily, while Gillard claims it was her decision. Given that the PM has announced that Thomson will not be the ALP candidate for Dobell at the next election, we may again give due credence to the conflicting claims.

I appreciate that the Thomson affair is a major ongoing political scandal and that Thomson himself is being treated as a political football by competing interests, but removing reliable sources is not the way to report on the affair. We should use sources to present all sides, and if an editor is upset by the material provided by one good source, find another that provides a different view. We have an enormous range of sources at the moment. --Pete (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt's writings are "a major ongoing political scandal". That is his job. He is paid by conservative media outlets to pander to the pre-existing ignorance and bigotry of their audience. In his last brush with the law it was also highlighted by the judge that his interest in truth is much lower than his interest in satisfying his audience. If we're looking for a neutral POV here, we should go nowhere near Bolt. It's never his goal. Oh, any source with the word "blog" in its url should also be an instantaneous "keep away" warning for Wikipedia editors. Given that there are so many sources available, it will be easy to avoid Bolt, and we must. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm concerned about blogs pretending to be mainstream media, such as those running on Wordpress through some unknown URL. I'm less concerned about mainstream media pretending to be blogs, such as Bolt's. It's opinion sponsored by a reliable source, every bit as much as Michelle Grattan or Paul Kelly or the ABC's The Drum. We can and should take all opinion with a grain of salt, but when the readership is in the millions, we can give those opinions a bit more weight. And as you point out, satisfying the audience is what it's all about. Neutral point of view, as you should know, is not about finding an unbiased impartial source, so much as giving due weight to diverse reliable sources. Just because we don't personally agree with a statement or we don't like its author or we don't like their political leanings when commenting on a political case, those are not good reasons to disregard that source in favour of something that tells a different story. Why I like Bolt as a source in the two examples given is that he doesn't put his opinion into the pieces so much as he lays out the facts, exposing and rebutting the claims made by Thomson, and he does it in an efficient economical way. If we can find some source supporting Thomson's view, or better still rebutting Bolt with facts rather than opinion, then we should include that. But I'm not seeing a real lot on that side of the ledger. I'm seeing opinion and emotion and smoke and spurious arguments. Gillard and her henchmen are quite right to point out that Parliament is not a court, not a judge and jury. If votes to suspend members were acceptable, then she could convert her minority government into a majority in an afternoon's work. But when she is asked to explain what line had been crossed when she forced Thomson out of the ALP, then she is silent. She acted as judge and jury in that respect, and it's not just Tony Abbot making that point, it's every experienced political commentator. Wikipedia is telling the story of a major Australian political scandal here, not just in the sense that it will very likely end Gillard's career as Prime Minister, but in the sense that it is striking at the very existence of the union movement in that the union fees of members are being mis-spent. Whether it was Thomson who spent thousands on prostitutes or not, the money was still spent and apparently supported all the way to the top. Trying to put a spin on this thing is pointless when every day, on tv, radio, the front pages of the big papers, the fresh revelations come flowing in with the tide. And there's one big wave with Michael Williamson's name on it rolling steadily into the beach. --Pete (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I laugh at your view that Bolt uses facts alone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not my view. I'd like for you to be serious. Please. This is a serious matter, and we should treat it as such. --Pete (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Even if you personally think that Bolt is a terrific journalist, a wise editor, taking this seriously, would realise that using him as a source is ALWAYS going to be controversial. It's just best to avoid him. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. It's wrong. This is not an article about me, nor you, nor Andrew Bolt. Nor about Craig Thomson per se. It's about the political scandal, which is controversial to begin with. That's the whole point. If it were boring and uncontroversial, there wouldn't be an article. What I'm seeing is an argument directed at removing an excellent source because you and others don't like what he has to say. I'm guessing that if we removed every source that says what you don't want to hear, we'd have no controversy and no article.

Where I'm having difficulty, and where you could maybe help, is in finding good sources that say good things about Craig Thomson. My feeling is that he's been about as good a local member as anyone else, he's being used as a political football and he's being placed in a difficult, if not impossible position. But I'm not finding good sources for these opinions. Nor can I find any mainstream source that says his claims are credible. I don't think he's suicidal - in my experience the people who are fair dinkum about it don't send out warnings - but he's clearly under a lot of stress. I'm also looking to reduce the timeline to a series of dot points and expand the various aspects of the thing into sections.

I've given my reasons for liking those Bolt articles - not because I agree with his opinions, nor that I think he's a terrific political journalist - I would put Grattan and Kelly into that bucket long before Bolt - but because he provides a good pointer to Thomson's email claiming he was "very happy" with the defamation "settlement", and he concisely and authoritatively demolishes some of Thomson's statements in his recent speech. Find other journalists who give the same factual material and we can lose Bolt. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt isn't a reliable source. The courts have determined that Bolt is a reckless liar, racist, and defamer and his nonsense could never be called a reliable source. 121.216.230.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion does not mesh with Wikipedia's article on Andrew Bolt, which provides a balanced view. Please follow wikiprocedure if you have valid concerns. Deleting information because you do not like the content or the author is not good practice. Feel free to insert material consistent with WP:RS and WP:NPOV if you feel the article is slanted unfairly. I've restored the links you removed from my comments above, citing BLP problems. They are just links, not statements, and on reviewing the articles, they are well-sourced. BLP policy is strict, as it should be, but when negative statements have good sources, they are not to be removed just because they are negative. I note that this article was raised on the BLP noticeboard and discussion lapsed when i asked for specific details to be presented for discussion. If anyone has any valid BLP problems, then discuss them by all means. This is a sensitive issue, but I observe that Thomson's own opinion seems to be very much a fringe position, and putting it forward as unchallenged truth is a bit like letting the conspiracy theorists write the Apollo Program article. --Pete (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Skyring alias Pete, your ongoing attempts to use court-condemned racist and libeler Andrew Bolt - see http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html - as a 'reliable source' means I can no longer assume good faith with you. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Bolt is paid to write extreme, largely right wing material. He has said so himself. He NEVER writes positive stuff about anything to do with the ALP. You simply must know that. Stop pushing this POV bullshit. Stick to simple, known facts. Avoid opinion pieces. If the simple facts without Bolt bias don't match your POV, maybe your POV is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Journalists are paid - that's their job. What, specifically, don't you like about the information, apart from the author? As I've mentioned earlier, we would be unwise to accept Bolt's opinions, but the facts and material he unearths are good sources. --Pete (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You know his aims. You must also rationally realise that he won't use a balanced selection of balanced sources. Please give up on this biased campaign of yours. Bolt is paid to be biased. You're not. That you choose to show such a politically one sided view here gives no credence to your claims to be trying to create a balanced article. Recognise that your own opinion (which, of course, you're entitled to), is not middle of the road, and should therefore not be reflected in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Bolt is balanced or not, so long as we are. What statements made in the article, for which Bolt is used as a source, are problematic? --Pete (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Just don't continue to act so dumb as to even want to use Bolt as a source. It's simply not smart. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have anything specific to discuss? About this article, in particular? --Pete (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Skyring alias Pete, I do - your defamatory libel. Specifically, this comment of yours: "Fair Work Australia has commenced proceedings against Thomson in the Federal Court". A check on https://www.comcourts.gov.au proves your statement is a bold-faced lie and has thus been removed. I also note that YOU first inserted this libel onto the Craig_Thomson_(politician) page before starting this article. Let me guess; you got this crap from Bolt, eh? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its standards on what are reliable sources and what are not. Bolt is not. Find another source for your content. It's as simple as that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have read most of what Bolt has printed since 1998, and cannot find the hyperbole many here refer to. Putting aside the inflation of a court case findings, it is usually possible to examine Bolt's references and justifications. He, like any good journalist provides them. It is valid to refer to an opinion of Bolt without calling it fact. I would welcome references to anything that Bolt has done that justifies the wild claims others put here, but please send them to me, and don't waste space on this page about the Craig Thomson affair. Unlike Bolt, Thomson does not justify himself and apparently made effort to remove material which might exonerate him of public suspicion of immoral behaviour. DDB (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)DDB (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Any wise editor knows that Bolt is controversial. There is no point whatsoever in referring to his opinions. He is paid to express right wing, anti-ALP ones. They are of no value to Wikipedia. (The same would apply to someone paid to express anti-LNP views.) As for using Bolt's writings as a source for "facts", this is a dangerous approach. If they truly are facts, then find another source for them. If no other source exists, then they probably aren't facts. HiLo48 (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

User 121.216.230.139

This user has anonymously and selectively removed edits for no valid editorial reason. It is apparent that the new edits break npov rules and should be reversed. It is possible the user is Craig Thomson himself, or a paid ALP supporter with a vested interest. DDB (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this diff, where a well-sourced, indeed triply-sourced after discussion, statement is removed, described as "vandalism"', it is clear we need more eyes on this article, and on the behaviour of this editor in particular. This disruptive and uncivil behaviour, in a sensitive and important article, needs to be directed towards something more positive. --Pete (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't the dog locked up in the pound for a whole year for yapping like this? Hmmm. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Ddball|DDB

This user has objected to the removal of biased materials and poorly sourced defamation for no valid editorial reason. It is apparent that the old edits break npov rules and should have been reversed. It is possible the user is Tony Abbott himself, or a paid Liberal National Party supporter with a vested interest. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My suspicions have proven to be correct; the editor User:Ddball|DDB is David Daniel Ball, a member of the Liberal Party. [5] Thus Ball has a vested political interest in defaming Mr Thomson for the benefit of his party. Ball should have recused himself from editing this article due to a blatant WP:COI.

Good pickup. That probably explains the irrational obsession with using Bolt as a source. And it is irrational. Any smart person, even if they wanted to do everything they could to get rid of Thomson, would realise that using Bolt is going to damage their case with a big chunk of the population. A real lack of perspective on display there. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48, as you state below, it is up to the courts to decide Craig Thomson's guilt or innocence - not the Liberal Party, not the ALP, not serial libelers employed by the media like Andrew Bolt and Kate McClymont, not Wikipedia, and not you or me. Until findings of fact are made which conform to the Evidence Act 1995, Australia's system of justice demands that a person is innocent until proven criminally guilty or civilly liable. For the record, I have no political party affiliations and I am not being compensated in any way by any person or group to edit this article; I do so because the smear campaign being undertaken against Thomson offends my sense of justice and I believe it undermines the very concept of justice - that, and the fact that no one else seemed to correct the bias after this article was reported to the BLP noticeboard by me the first time. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty much a newcomer to this article. It surprised me that it even existed. That in itself seems a bit POV to me. What we seem to be seeing here is similar to some of the rabid behaviour from LNP MPs that's allowed under parliamentary privilege, but cannot be published here. Some people don't seem to know the difference. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am no longer a member of the Liberal Party, but I was. Can you point to where I am wrong in substance? I made no secret of my identity, unlike user 121.216.230.139 DDB (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I have recommended registering to 121.216.230.139. As for your content, a tip. If you want to convince anyone not yet fully on your side that Thomson is an evil man, don't use Bolt. Grow some perspective here. If you have any brains at all you must realise that some people adore Bolt and some despise him. You won't change the minds of those in the latter group by using him as a source. Find a less controversial one. And don't try to bypass the proper legal process. That's the worst thing about the behaviour of Abbott and his mates on this matter. Thomson may be very bad, but it's up to the courts to decide, not a bunch of politically biased players. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside opinion, have you anything of substance? I would point out I have not used Bolt, or quoted him here. As for the accusation that I have prejudged Thomson, I have not and neither can you find anything that I have written which does. What has happened that makes you assume people do? I would ask that you write for yourself, and not your side DDB (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What is my side? HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You wrote "If you want to convince anyone not yet fully on your side" it is a logical extension that you are claiming one. DDB (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. You clearly have an alignment with the Liberal Party's approach on this matter. That puts you on a side. Labor Party members and supporters might well be expected to be on what could be called the other side. I'm not aligned with either. In sport and in life I seem to find myself more often in the role of umpire or mediator. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not speaking for everyone but yourself. I have some five million words online and have never abrogated my position to a mere party line. I am not now a member of the Liberal Party. Now could you please address my question? DDB (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's just follow Wikiprocedure, shall we?

Looking at some of the recent comments here, it seems that we have som new editors with strongly held opinions. First of all, you are all welcome. Second, please follow the established procedures and policies here. They work. Even when editors have strongly opposing views, they work.Calling other editors names and accusing them of bias and being disruptive is not going to get your point of view to prevail over all others. It's going to get you in trouble, suspended, topic-banned or worse.

Wikipedia works in controversial subject areas - such as this one - primarily because we use reliable sources and a neutral point of view. I urge all to examine these policies, follow them, and check that other editors do the same. In short, we don't insert material that we think should go into the article - even if we know it for a fact - unless we have a published source for it. A scholarly or official publication is best, a news item or specialist website is good, a blog or a discussion board is pretty well worthless.

Neutral Point of View doesn't mean we present one impartial line. It means we give opposing views space commensurate with their credibility and community acceptance. We can tell two or more stories and let our readers make up their own minds, by examine the sources. Clearly we have such a situation here.

121.216.230.139, can I suggest that you create an account, which will make things easier for all involved, especially you. Can I also urge you to look at how to respond to other editors within a discussion so that it is clear who said what in reply to who. Respond at the end of someone's comments and follow the indentation sequence - just add another colon.

Regarding your accusation of a "bold-faced lie" above, I suggest you examine the source provided - ABC News - which I used as a basis. I didn't go checking any court registered, I merely used the ABC's reporting.

On using Bolt as a source, may I suggest that editors review WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. If there is anything specific in what he says and is used in this article, discuss it. Don't just reject it, because if we start down that path, we're going to be rejecting a lot of sources from one side or the other, and poor old Craig Thomson isn't going to fare well in that area.

And finally, I repeat that this is an article that is both politically sensitive and concerns an actual living human being. Our opinions, both for and against, are not as important as getting it right. It would be really great if we could work with each other to do this. --Pete (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you examine the source provided - ABC News - which I used as a basis.Pete, you are now proven to be a pathological liar; the cited ABC News article does NOT mention any specific action in relation to Craig Thomson. It states: "FWA's investigation into the embattled union had already found 181 contraventions of rules and legislation, and today general manager Bernadette O'Neill asked lawyers to begin legal proceedings in the Federal Court." The underlined section in the cited article hyperlinks to another article on ABC News, which categorically stated the contraventions involved the HSU national office along with two current officials, a former auditor, and one former official. You know perfectly well that none of those are Craig Thomson and you also know perfectly well that their names have already been released to the media. Stop lying, stop posting defamation, and stop re-inserting the delusions and smears perpetrated by libelous racists for use in the biography of a living person. Small wonder that HiLo48 was incensed by your kookery, especially when you kept baiting that editor with the blatant stupidity I have written about here. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Bolt is a sensible source to use for an article like this is NOT trying to work cooperatively, or has rocks in their head. I have explained why in several ways in the thread immediately above. That you have ignored all of that shows either a poor perspective or pure bias. Drop the artificial niceness and be a little more realistic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Bolt provides two things in the sources I used:

1. a link to Thomson's email after the defamation case against Fairfax was settled
2. a list of specific rebuttals to Thomson's statement in Parliament.

I don't care for Bolt's opinions, nor have I quoted any. We can use biased sources - for example Thomson's address to Parliament - so long as we follow NPOV guidelines. Just because you or anyone else doesn't like what Bolt or Thomson have to say about this matter is of no consequence. We are not trying Thomson and delivering a verdict, we are presenting the situation and including relevant points of view. Now, please desist with the personal attacks and assumptions. --Pete (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said above (where you haven't even responded) "using Bolt's writings as a source for "facts" is a dangerous approach. If they truly are facts, then find another source for them. If no other source exists, then they probably aren't facts." And don't change the article when nobody has replied to your views. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. I did exactly what you asked, by supplying another source. I'll add in VexNews as well, shall I? --Pete (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You didn't do what I asked. I asked for no Bolt. You included Bolt. Are you stupid? HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now given you two other sources and there are many more available. Bolt quotes the entire Thomson email, so he's a better source in that regard. But I've included the VexNews link as well. I'll keep on working on it. I'd really like for you to address the content, rather than making increasingly uncivil attacks. This is well-sourced material, reported in major newspapers. The $240K payment by Thomson to Fairfax was reported this morning - it's all over the media - and needs to be included. --Pete (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summary for this diff, could you please explain your apparent lapse of WP:CIVIL? I supplied another source, one of thirteen pages worth of google hits in australian newspapers, exactly as you requested, after I asked over a period of some time for any comments on the specific points raised. There were none. I have now added the original Vexnews source. If I dig some more, I'm sure I can find more. --Pete (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You ignore what others say. You're either stupid, or rude. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that you playing mediator, HiLo? DDB (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm trying to get an editor to think about the impact of their behaviour. I couldn't think of any other explanation than stupid or rude. Can you? HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Very happy with settlement

When googling the text of Thomson's email explaining the settlement of the defamation case, I find over a dozen pages of hits, mostly stemming from news reports in Australian cities and towns. I have not seen any statement from Thomson or any other player that the email is incorrect, fraudulent, quoted out of context or in any way anything other than what it purports to be. It is consistent with Thomson's other claims about the defamation action, in which he implies that Fairfax dropped the case. In fact, as we today learnt, Thomson paid $240 000 to Fairfax, and Fairfax continued to publish their claims. Accordingly I have reinserted the source and added another. The original source dates from June 2011 and is one strongly supportive of Thomson and critical of Fairfax. It seems most unlikely that VexNews, which has continued to support Thomson, was somehow publishing a fraudulent email and left it uncorrected for a year. --Pete (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

AFAIC, it has no message headers. It therefore may be a forgery. Anyone remember Gordon Gretch? Without message headers, it is not a reliable source - no matter who reposts it - and Wikipedia policy is clear on this point: it must be removed. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And you did that re-adding and adding without waiting for any discussion! Find some manners! HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked several times for comments on the specific points raised by Bolt and nobody has come up with any. How much longer do I have to wait? I prefer Bolt and McClymont to VexNews as a source, simply because they have wide distribution, compared to VexNews's blogsite, but I see no reason to doubt that VexNews published a genuine email from Thomson. --Pete (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Skyring alias Pete, Bolt and McClymont are both court-established defamers; McClymont is in the employ of the defendant in the Thomson defamation case, making her a questionable source at best. Citation of their material in this article will therefore be deleted immediately upon discovery, per Wikipedia policy. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Discuss. Be patient. Unless you're busting to see Thomson in gaol or something so Tony can become PM, there is no rush. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The story about the ALP paying Thomson's legal bills, including $240K, broke this morning. It's a major development. I don't think Thomson is going to be convicted of anything soon - he hasn't been charged with anything. Let's just report developments in the case. It would help if you'd help with the article instead of being disruptive. I can see a lot of work that needs to be done. As for discussion, could you please comment on the points raised, as requested several times? --Pete (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, User:Skyring alias Pete; poorly sourced, unsourced, unreliably sourced, and defamatory material will be deleted per Wikipedia BLP policy. Deal with it. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There is still no rush. This is an encyclopaedia, not a breaking news service. If you want to see some new words in the article, propose them here, with your sources. (Excluding Bolt!) Wait until others (not just me) have commented. You seem very excited by this story. That's not the best mood to be in to create great content. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very excited? I suggest you count up your exclamation marks over the past day and note the trend. How much time do you need to comment on Thomson's email? it's been at least a day since I asked here. You could help a bit - I'm going to go over the edits made by our anon editor newbie, but I'm going to be busy tomorrow, so if you could check them for me, it will save a bit of work. --Pete (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

NO BOLT!!! NO BOLT!!! NO BOLT!!! You're a defiant, arrogant prick. Do you pay any attention at all to what others say? HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, User:HiLo48 - not with it conflicts with their POV or their party's interests. May I suggest the best course of action when faced by recalcitrants (like these two lackeys of Gina's butler) is to ignore them and not be baited by their smarmy insincerity; it's obvious they're pretending to play nice and pretend to be helpful so their defamatory attack page remains as such. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read my response above on this specific point and discuss. You could also respond to my polite request for an explanation of your breach of WP:CIVIL. I'm moving through the checklist provided there, and you could work through the steps with me. --Pete (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

YOU could fucking wait!! Repeatedly changing the article while discussion is still underway is more unfuckingcivil than any naughty fucking words. You are a rude, impatient prick. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could I ask you to remove or reword your uncivil phrasing above? Please? --Pete (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You could ask, but there's no fucking point. You've fucking ignored everything I've said. Why should I obey you? Are you used to that sort of power? HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to constructively criticise, Pete, but as far as I can tell you path and direction seem reasonable and balanced. DDB (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, could I at least get you to read the Bolt source? I'm not using it for anything actually written by Bolt. Not one word. It is there as a vehicle for Thomson's email about the Fairfax "settlement", which Bolt quotes in full from a strongly pro-Thomson blog, made a year earlier. Kate McClymont also references that email, which is widely republished. Thomson's email, in the light of subsequent revelations that he dropped the case and paid Fairfax $240 000, goes directly to his credibility. I note that our friend the anon newbie has removed this, including the ABC News source, describing it as vandalism and I'll be taking that matter further. --Pete (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you post this bolt sources for investigation please - Youreallycan 17:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the material the anon editor removed, claiming "vandalism": Thomson claimed that although the settlement was confidential, it was one with which he was very happy. In fact, Thomson paid Fairfax $240 000 in settlement and the newspaper continued to publish the allegations. --Pete (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Opinionated bloggers and claimed private emails as a minimum need clear attribution - It is unclear ( and I have tagged the article for such reasons) has the subject of the article been found guilty of anything in a court of law? Youreallycan 17:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In relation to any matters in this article: no, he hasn't. More than that, he has not been charged with any criminal matters which are the subject of this page, nor (at time of writing) have any civil proceedings commenced with him as a defendant. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia minions are editing article

It appears that minions of the Liberal Party of Australia are editing this article, with the intent to push a pro-LNP bias into the article. One such minion claims he has left the LNP, yet a YouTube video of him retrieved today still remains active where he categorically states that he is a member of the organisation. Given that this editor refuses to acknowledge that using a source which is severely biased at best and has been held liable for defamation and racism on numerous occasions in a BLP article is totally inappropriate means that good faith can no longer be assumed. WP:COI must be invoked. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• The conflicted contributors WP:COI need to back off/stop editing this article - there are serious WP:BLP issues arising here and it needs to stop - I will be asking other experienced wikipedia contributors to watch this article and the Biography - Youreallycan 14:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

At last! Thank you. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This article needs more eyes on it. I am appalled at some of the personal attacks being made here. New editors may be mistaking Wikipedia for some online forum, but there is really no excuse for experienced editors. If this sort of thing continues, admin intervention is going to be needed. --Pete (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you noticed the "personal attacks", did you? Did you also notice people asking you to not use Bolt, to slow down, to actually discuss, rather than telling then posting, to stop using Wikipedia to try to bring down a government? HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

User:HiLo48, it's clear to me that User:Skyring alias Pete is playing The Wikipedia Game. With regards to adding the trash expectorated from creatures like Bolt as sources, Jimmy Wales' policy is very clear: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information No one in their right mind would use Bolt as a source unless they are pushing a POV. I also note with interest the comments of User:Youreallycan who I presume is not in Australia; it appears, after reading the article, that this editor was unable to establish if Mr Thomson had been criminally charged or civilly sued in relation to the matters in the article. So it seems to me that User:Skyring alias Pete has succeeded in creating an attack page. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've tried to point out to the anti-Labor crew here, even if they're pushing a POV, they'd still be mad to use Bolt. Everyone who is aware of him knows that he is controversial. If your argument depends on Bolt alone, it's a crappy argument. If Bolt helps you find other sources, fine, use them. Anything would look better than using Bolt. And for Youreallycan, if you're American, using Bolt as a source here would be like using Bill O'Reilly for objective opinion on a Democratic Party Congressman. Not sure who the equivalent UK public bigot is at the moment. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Defamation action against the Sydney Morning Herald

The previously removed material, sourced from Fairfax Media's 'mytalk.com'au' site has been restored. An explanation justifying the reasons for the source's reliability has been left at the WP:RSN. It is necessary to add this essential and crucial information to the article in order to provide the balance it currently lacks. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about essential and crucial information, but it is certainly a topic that should be included - if we can determine that the images are what they purport to be, the documents used to charge prostitutes to Craig Thomson's credit card. After all, if one insists on headers to judge the veracity of an email, surely one should insist on equal verifiability for images of documents. I'm not convinced that these are actual images of documents tendered to complete the transaction - just how, exactly, does an outcall prostitute scan a drivers licence? Checking the name and face, certainly. Recording the information on the back of the credit card slip, also feasible. But does an escort lug around a photocopier? And who in their right mind would let a prostitute take a scan of their drivers licence?

I think that if the email from Thomson goes, this must also be removed for exactly the same reasons.

Moving on, I think that we should include some points about the defamation case:

1. Thomson's language and claims about how the defamation case was dropped. He attempted to portray it as a "settlement" that was in his favour.
2. Thomson dropped the defamation case, and paid $240 000 to Fairfax in a settlement.
3. The NSW ALP paid Thomson the money to settle with Fairfax.

If we are looking for essential and critical information - that is it right there: Thomson was unable to counter the allegations raised in public by Fairfax, and had to pay to settle the case. Why pay Fairfax a quarter of a million dollars if the allegations are false? It's not as if Fairfax stopped publishing their claims against him - they kept right on going. --Pete (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(restoring what was maliciously deleted)121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I heard a rabid dog yapping in the distance, and I chose to ignore it. Dogs tend to make incoherent yapping noises simply because they can; they do not need to make any sense when they do, and they never have any idea what they are yapping about. Sometimes the sound of the yapping mongrel can't be ignored any more and then further steps need to be taken. To stop rabid mongrels yapping, they are firstly best neutered, then muzzled, then taken to the pound, and then finally put to sleep. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am persuaded by YRC's comments about Thomson's email and attribution, especially as the source is a private blog. I have no reason to doubt that it is genuine, but yes, it would help if the ultimate source were more reliable than VexNews. I'll put it aside until a better source becomes available. Likewise the "Independent Australia" blog cited by the anon editor has about the same status of reliability. For those concerned about Bolt, this source looks to be even more partisan, about as reliable as the average student newspaper. --Pete (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now the mongrel has been caught digging up the garden again. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the domain 'mytalk.com.au'

I have sourced two items from this domain:

1. The purported credit card franking reciept; and
2. The Brandis letter to the NSW Police Commissioner.

Both items are sourced from http://media.mytalk.com.au/2ue/*.

media.mytalk.com.au is a subdomain of mytalk.com.au. Note that http://mytalk.com.au redirects instantaneously to http://www.fairfax.com.au/ - thus proving mytalk.com.au is a Fairfax owned and operated domain. I will therefore restore the material maliciously removed. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed by two different editors as per WP:RS. Could you provide some evidence of provenance as to the documents, please? I also note that your request at WP:RSN has received no support. On that note, using wikilinks in section headings is not considered good practice for some technonerdy reason. --Pete (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the photograph of documents. There is no attribution, and the drivers licence image has clearly been tampered with. As noted on Saturday, if we can't use the Thomson email on the VexNews site, we cannot use this image, because the same problems of veracity arise. --Pete (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

FWA FC action vs CT

I have restored the mention on the timeline for 7 May of FWA's announcement to commence proceedings against Thomson. Two ABC News reports state this, and one includes a copy of the press release from FWA general manager Bernadette O'Neill.[6] We may yet tweak the wording a little, but the reality is that the announcement was made and we have good sources for it.

I am instructing solicitors to initiate proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in respect of the findings made by the Delegate. In my assessment, some adverse findings were clearly available to the Delegate on the basis of the material in the report; some are more finely balanced. My decision is to take action in respect of all the Delegate’s findings, subject to a legal assessment by counsel that there are reasonable prospects of success.

While Thomson is not specifically named, the fact that most of the report's findings concern him and action is being taken in respect to all of the findings means he is included. --Pete (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

STOP IT NOW!

It's time everyone here, particularly Pete/Skyring. tried a little harder to achieve consensus on this Talk page BEFORE changing the article. How about a moratorium on any changes for 24 hours? The rabid pollies are having a long weekend. The article can too.

AT the moment we effectively have edit warring, which I'm contemplating formally reporting. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please report it. Constantly re-inserting false and defamatory libel because the editor sees more in a news report than is actually there - especially when he know it is untrue, should be acted upon. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

How about we observe wikiprocedure for 24 hours? We don't need discussion on removing vandalism or personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think you would be able to cope with my suggestion. I was right. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's as may be, but I don't need prior discussion to insert material that is accurate, pertinent and reliably sourced. Removing it is vandalism and I'm calling it that way. --Pete (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You DO need discussion. It's called seeking and gaining consensus on wording. It's also good faith editing. There's also the concept of notability to consider. And, at a human level, it's called patience. Pause and think. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In order to provide balance to the article, there must be a degree of honesty in the editors contributing to it. When a pathological liar (not a personal attack, but a statement of fact) insists on drawing false and defamatory conclusions based upon his own prejudices and political beliefs, good faith cannot be assumed any more. Nor can good faith be presumed when editors have a clear and obvious conflict of interest by provable past (and perhaps present) connections to the subject's political adversaries. Considering that the defendant in Thomson's defamation action was a major media empire - which would ordinarily be considered a reliable source due to journalistic standards requiring the neutral reportage of news - I believe Wikipedia must use extreme scrutiny in the choice of articles from that empire to be used as sources. In this article, there are numerous 'opinion pieces' which are purported to be 'reliable sources' by virtue of the fact they are published by a major news outlet; I believe their inclusion as such here is unacceptable and inappropriate. There must be clear delineation between the use of 'opinion pieces' and 'news pieces'. In this article, there has been an obsession with pathological liars drawing conclusions based on incomplete information; specifically, the statement that Thomson has been taken to the Federal Court by FWA in relation to the HSU report and this has been reported in the media, when this is not the case. The liar is drawing conclusions based on his own personal prejudices, and thus his statement has no basis in fact. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not following you here. The affair is about as notable as Australian political scandals get, and the announcement, in conjunction with the release of a report making 150 findings against Thomson, that court action will be taken against Thomson, is pertinent. The material is accurate and reliably sourced. Removing it is vandalism, and I've warned the editor. We'll see how he responds, but he can't continue like this - it's disruptive, and as noted by others, increasing tensions here. Next step is a formal request to get some admin eyes on this. --Pete (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, none of the editing done on the article qualifies as vandalism, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to re-read WP:VANDAL. Second, opinion pieces must not be used as sources except for the opinions themselves, and only when the person writing the opinion is somehow relevant (an expert in the field). Otherwise, that information must be removed, especially because this is a BLP. Additionally, I should note that while I have re-added the info removed by the IP, I did so only because the rationale for removing it made no sense: repeating what a major news outlet says by definition cannot be libel or defamation, unless we had very very strong reason to believe the claim is false (which we don't). It may be that the information should be removed for other reasons (WP:UNDUE would seem like the most relevant one), but that's a more complex issue which can be discussed here. Finally, the edit-warring has to stop. Whether that stops due to people getting with the program and not warring, or it stops because we block someone, is a matter for you to decide yourselves. Similarly, so must the personal attacks--you can't say "It's not a personal attack because it's a fact". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What else can be said when it's a matter of deliberate, intentional, and knowing dishonesty? You tell me. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Discovery of legal proceedings

The authoritative source for the discovery of legal proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia is the Federal Court of Australia website - https://www.comcourts.gov.au - not ABC News. Further, the ABC News reports do not specify Craig Thomson by name, and User:Skyring alias Pete is drawing conclusions based on what ABC News stated. It is therefore obvious that User:Skyring alias Pete insists on re-inserting false and defamatory material. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the timeline of the affair and it is a fact that the General Manager of Fair Work Australia announced on that date that she had requested lawyers to begin proceedings in the Federal Court against all of those named in the findings of the report into the HSU, one of which was Craig Thomson. See discussion above and the news articles referenced. Whether any action in the Federal Court has commenced is immaterial - the announcement was made on 7 May 2012 and that's a fact. --Pete (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Section heading restored. No proceedings are pending against Thomson in the Federal Court and adding the libel to the article has no valid justification The vandal's libel has been removed several times now. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Section heading changed to neutral wording per WP:TALKNEW. 121.216.230.139 cool it with the personal attacks or you'll wind up at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Stuff like this only hurts your cause by shifting attention away from the article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer regarding WP:TALKNEW, of which I was previously unaware. However, I would welcome WP:AIV or WP:ANI intervention, given what is going on here. Please note I am not the first person to have been baited. A question for you: should defamatory libel be removed upon discovery, Neil? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

See Qwyrxian above: "...repeating what a major news outlet says by definition cannot be libel or defamation, unless we had very very strong reason to believe the claim is false (which we don't)." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

.."...repeating what a major news outlet says by definition cannot be libel or defamation [....] Oh really? Fairfax Media is a "major news outlet" and it has been sued - successfully - for defamation. [7] HTH. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in reference to your first statement, I am willing to accept that no charges are pending. Luckily, that's not what the article or the ABC source say. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-23/fair-work-begins-action-against-victorian-union/4029016 - note that Thomson is not named. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The matter of relevance arises. What connection did Thomson ever have to that particular branch of HSU? There are various investigations underway into various parts of the Health Services Union. The one mentioned in the report is separate. --Pete (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, please quote the exact part of the ABC source which states specifically that Thomson is "facing charges" or that proceedings in the FCA have commenced against him. Please concede that if you cannot, you are drawing a conclusion based upon what the article does say. In that case, if it is incorporated in the Wikipedia article, the statement that '"Fair Work Australia asked lawyers to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against Thomson [....]" is libel and it must be removed. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I draw your attention to this report, which states Fair Work Australia has begun legal proceedings against Craig Thomson in the Federal Court, dismissing the embattled MP’s claims that its report into his misuse of union funds was flawed and biased. FWA said last night it believed there was a reasonable prospect of success in pursuing civil proceedings against Mr Thomson. --Pete (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

PS - the above is a response and request to Qwyrxian. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

PPS - How is this for a 'reliable souce? error: /SysConfig/WebPortal/afr/story.jpt: An exception occurred processing JSP page /eom/SysConfig/WebPortal/afr/story.jpt at line 51 48: 49: lol! 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation for information on how to keep discussion threads straight. --Pete (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The article exists with at least the first sentence quoted above but it seems going to any search result currently results in an error. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Neil, this suggests that it has been removed from the host because it is false. By the way, my comments and responses seem to have been needlessly moved around here - isn't that considered to be baiting? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote: "going to any search result currently results in an error" and stop with the wild speculations. Your responses have been moved because you're not indenting correctly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

...wild speculations - nice PKB. Instead of making personal attacks, please specify the case number if a case against Thomson has in fact been filed in the FCA, thanks. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack - don't play that card, you'll lose. You speculated that because the site is having problems retrieving articles, the article was removed because it was false. As for your second point, please see Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#One_who_disputes_the_reliability_of_apparently_good_sources. That is, we have reliable sources saying a legal case has been launched. Do your own homework and find sources saying it hasn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack (when you do it, eh?) don't play that card, you'll lose (cute threat there). The Federal Court of Australia website - https://www.comcourts.gov.au - does not list any case filed against Thomson. It is ridiculous to suggest that I should prove a negative for your claim when you have failed to prove any affirmative to it from a primary source - which in litigation matters, is the court itself. As you insist on making the claim in Wikipedia, the burden of proof is on you to prove a case has been filed on him. Do so, instead of making personal attacks and threats. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We avoid using primary sources here per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." So again, find secondary sources that say no legal action has been taken. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous request NeilN. If the court isn't listing it, it's not listed. How else can such a negative be proven? This is a serious question. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Any secondary reliable source could say the earlier reports were mistaken or Fair Work could issue a denial. This incident seems very high profile and anything wrong with this ("FWA general manager Bernadette O'Neill said lawyers had been instructed to prepare documents and initiate proceedings against Mr Thomson, according to the AFR.") would be reported on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You know that's not likely. The absence of such a report does not prove earlier claims to be true. One can take this negatives game as far as one likes, and prove absolutely nothing. Maybe you're inexperienced in this type of discussion, but asking someone to prove that something hasn't happened is not a valid discussion tactic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I completely disagree with you. We have three reports saying FWA have started proceedings. If they were incorrect, I think it would be highly likely some sort of denial from the agency would have taken place or retractions made. What you're essentially saying is we can't take anything at face value because there might be as yet unknown sources out there contradicting existing sources. That's not how Wikipedia works - verifiability, and not truth. In this case, the sentence "Fair Work Australia asked lawyers to commence proceedings in the Federal Court against Thomson and others named in the report's adverse findings." can be supported by three sources. Are you saying the reports are incorrect or that the GM is misleading the reporters or something else? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You've just completely misread, misinterpreted and/or misrepresented what I said. I am left suspecting either incompetence or POV pushing. There's a lot of that on this page. I give up for now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the ad homenim attack. If anyone else can figure out what HiLo48 is saying, please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Read this carefully. I am saying that it's wrong, in any discussion, to demand that somebody prove that something didn't happen. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's a basic philosophy of rational discussion. Complex details of irrelevant facts from this story are just that. Irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought you meant and I still disagree with you. If a moon-landing denialist says the moon landings didn't happen, I'm going to point to reliable sources and say, "there, now show me sources that contradict these." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're playing The Wikipedia Game, Neil. You're trying to fall back on a policy that wasn't intended to be used for the purposes you are trying to use it for. If the media says there is a court case and the courts do not list one, there is obviously a discrepancy - and BLP policy to "do no harm" must presume there is no pending case, especially if the courts do not list one. Oh my goodness; what's this? [[8]] Instead of playing the Wikipedia Game here, please either cite the number of the court case or remove the allegation from the article, thanks. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 06:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete has provided three secondary sources so removal isn't going to happen based on "no sources", sorry. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the case number, Neil? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It's displaying fine on my Mac and iPad. There are several pages of search results and I'm having no trouble with any. Possibly a subscription cookie thing, but I'm certainly not subscribed to the Fin Review. I'll see if I can find another source, such as this or this. --Pete (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

this article on ABC says, "FWA's investigation into the embattled union had already found 181 contraventions of rules and legislation, and today general manager Bernadette O'Neill asked lawyers to begin legal proceedings." Later on in the article it specifies that Thomson is one of the people she recommended be the subject of these proceedings. The lead of the article specifies that it is the Federal Court that these proceedings will be initiated in. I hope this adequately answers your question about why I reverted your removal. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, post ec followup: IP why do you keep asking for a court case? The article doesn't say that a court case has been filed. It says that the prosecutor asked the agency to begin proceedings. That doesn't say that formal proceedings have actually begun. I would absolutely agree with you that the article cannot and should not say "A case was filed against Thomson..." (or anything similar) until such time as the case is filed. This is exactly the same as reporting, "President X instructed Department Y to produce a report on Subject Z", even though preparing said report may take a year or two. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with you that the article cannot and should not say "A case was filed against Thomson..." (or anything similar) until such time as the case is filed. I am pleased to hear that, Qwyrxian - because that is exactly what the article said before I made an issue of it. Neil's little friend brought that lie over from where he's put it on the Craig Thomson (politician) biography page and added it to this article. I also agree with you that reporting the matter should be done in the manner you suggest. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, given that the info you removed from the article and called "false and defamatory libel" was exactly that, I don't know why you're still complaining. If everyone agrees on the current wording of that portion, could we please close this specific discussion (since there seem to be other concerns)? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Retraction

This is a typical piece of libel which was re-inserted by the pathological liar:

"[redacted]'s settlement did not result in any retraction or apology from the newspaper, which continued to publish the allegations on the basis that they were true."

Let's bring in some admins, because this bullshit has gone on for long enough. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 08:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was at least a misinterpretation of what the source actually said. I've removed the bit that said "on the basis that they were true". HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But he's putting back in all his nonsense and making the guy appear guilty again. Never mind that the franking receipts are crude and obvious forgeries; never mind that there aren't any active court proceedings against him; etc etc. I wonder if this is the sort of crap he pulled when he got banned for a year? Can you please mark the article as an attack page and get it speedily deleted? I can't edit it at all to even do that. This article is a disgrace, and if it's left to idiots like that for much longer, it will get even worse than it is now. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The article won't get speedied. You can try for a deletion at WP:AFD if you want the article gone. You might get lucky and get a merge with Craig Thomson. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The article as a whole is not an attack page, so NeilN is right. It may be correct to merge the article with Craig Thomson, to do that, you need to start a merger discussion as per WP:MERGE. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

121.216.230.139 - I've recommended to you several times that you register. It would make your life a lot easier. (You could edit the article!) I can't think of any negatives for you. Registered editors actually have a little more privacy than IP editors. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

IP, could I ask you, no matter what you privately believe, to tone down the personal attacks here. Please? It doesn't help your case, such as it is. You would do better to address the content rather than other editors. If the intention is to rile me up, it's not going to work - as a night cabbie I've copped much better and more creative abuse. I just laugh and award points for imagination and style. I'm taking care to provide good sources for every statement - instead of attacking reliable sources, why not find equally good sources for Thomson's claims, an area I've left largely untouched here. You are the reason the page is semi-protected, and if you'll work in coöperation with other editors we can get it unprotected. Or, as HiLo suggests, create an account, though I don't think that will give you the immediate ability to edit here. In any case, his advice is good.--Pete (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

...on the basis that they were true

Looking at the SMH's article, which says,

Fairfax Media, publisher of the Herald, was defending the case on the basis the allegations were true. It alleged that Mr Thomson was unfit to be a federal MP. Fairfax stands by the allegations published in the articles, which appeared from April 2009.

I am puzzled as to how we can word the newspaper's obvious belief that their claims were true. Presumably if that was the basis of their defence to defamation, then that was also the basis of publication subsequently. --Pete (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that's synthesis. You can't do it, and you don't need to. Unless of course you're trying to convince someone of your POV.... HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of the synthesis thing. I was looking for an alternate wording to make the point concisely. I can add it to a preceding sentence, I guess. As to my POV, it's immaterial. The mainstream media sources are all saying much the same thing, and of course the Fair Work Australia report is the basis for most of the recent stories. --Pete (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Incoherence

One task which should be addressed is that of putting the article into a better shape. There is a fair bit of duplication between the main text and the timeline, and I'd like to work on getting the timeline down to a series of dot points rather than paragraphs. I also make the point that this isn't just about Craig Thomson, but about the wider affair, particularly its political ramifications. --Pete (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don.t know if there a policy but timeline dot points are imo always a pov problem and are better avoided. What can happen is that it becomes leading - one point that might be weakly claimed and with lots of mitigating issues is strengthened in a undue way by the following the previous dot point as in one and two equals three - There aren't any political ramifications yet are there? - at least the partisan objective of using the issue to bring down the government seems not currently on the cards.Youreallycan 09:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Presuming the article is kept, I would start with adding some explaination of who CT is since currently the article does a very poor job of it. Yes the article on subject must have all the details but this article should give sufficient background as relevent to the case. At the very least it should mention he's a an (Australian federal) MP formerly of the Labor party who used to work for the HSU. At the current time, the article doesn't really explain any of this and instead treats it as a given the reader knows all of this and although much of it can be guessed by a reader with some inkling of Australian politics, the reader shouldn't have to. Similarly if you plan to add details on the political ramifications, core background info needs to be added e.g. how the current government has a very thin majority which relies on the support of independents. Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you Nil Einne - I was looking around for a place to cover it if its deleted - Cabinet_of_Australia , just a thought that I prefer to keep all the additional detail not specifically about Thompson from being placed there. I think that if a good article was written along the lines you mention it would not be at AFD. Youreallycan 16:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

pretend to NPOV

The article pushed UNDUE in a few places - this is a WP:BLP not a campaign article, and giving every amount etc. when the report is clearly linked for readers in UNDUE to say the lease. Also a few examples of obvious non-neutral wording are now excised, and the "timeline" which was of no value to the BLP was excised. Cheers. The remaining article details sufficient allegations and responses, and has had material which relied on primary sources, on pure allegation, etc. are and should remain "out." Collect (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, especially about the timeline, as per my comment above. . Its much better without and coherent without it. Youreallycan 10:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Collect. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Bold move, Collect! But where does this leave the reader seeking information about the Australian political scandal? The only reason this thing is a separate article rather than a few paragraphs in the subject's article is because it has the potential to end the Labor government, as agreed by just about every political commentator in the country. It's also been a massive media story over the past year, ever since the Sydney Morning Herald broke the news. We've seen Parliament interrupted, live blanket coverage of speeches and press conferences. The only comparable event in recent years has been the two ALP leadership challenges, one of which saw the head of government replaced. Neither lasted more than a week. It's a fine thing to say that the report is linked, but that's over a thousand pages long and pretty heavy slogging. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It leaves the reader where they should be per policy - looking at the sources, not reading opinions thinly veikled from editors and campaign pamphlets during political silly season. BTW, Wikipedia does not gauge "truth" by "polls" so that is "right out." The gist of the issue is presented now in an NPOV manner per Wikipedia policy regarding WP:BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just how many of the sources did you read? Calling a year long saga a "silly season" event makes me wonder about your appreciation of the importance of this affair. The government holds 71 seats in a house of 150 - every vote is critical and government motions often fail. The government has 25-30% support in a compulsory voting system. If Thomson goes, the government falls, and the subsequent election would see ALP numbers savagely reduced, much like the recent result in Queensland where the ALP government was reduced to 7 seats in a house of 89. While I appreciate bold moves aimed at improving article quality, and I agree with the thrust of your position generally, I think you have missed the mark on this one. --Pete (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia to be a political vehicle. The aim here is for lasting encyclopedic articles. The extensive ruminations about what might happen in Australia are just that - ruminations. The concept of an encyclopedia is to use facts which will be relevant in a decade, not stuff which is dealt with at more than sufficient length in the sources linked, but which do not have to be dealt with at length here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Really. Collect (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but you are evading my points. This affair is already one of the leading Australian political scandals, generating more serious media coverage than just about anything else in the last half century. The 1975 constitutional crisis would have had more column-inches over the years, but what else is in the same league? And how many of the sources which you boldly deleted did you open, let alone read? Did you download the 1 100 pages of the FWA report? Watch Thomson's hour-long explanation in Parliament or read the transcript? Being bold is one thing, and I sincerely appreciate the good intent to improve the article quality and Wikipedia, but being ruthless on a subject where you seem to have little or know background is sailing very close to the land of reckless. --Pete (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The dismissal has a wide variety of monograph and scholarly article accounts. There are any number of other incidents in Australian political history of much greater significance, such as Menzies' loss of power, or Lang. You appear to be referring to personal knowledge gained from original research into primary sources. This is not the manner in which encyclopaedia articles are written—we do not publish original research. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering as to Collect's knowledge of Australian politics; calling this a "silly season" event seems to be an extremely Northern Hemisphere way of looking at something which has been front page news for a year and has enormous community interest. Menzies's WW2 problems and Lang's Great Depression saga hardly fit into "the last half century", and if you look at the List of Australian political scandals, this is definitely a major one in terms of media coverage and potential impact.

Having said that, the article was looking rather choppy, and not improved at all by removing a lot of the background information! An opportunity to create a masterpiece, rather than bulldoze a slum. I think there's a sufficiency of excellent sources to make this a good article, though as always with Australian political articles finding usable photographs is a problem.

Without venturing too far into crystal ball territory, there's a series of inquiries under way, some or all will conclude over the remaining year of this parliamentary term, and it is unlikely that any of them will come out in support of Thomson's view outlined last month in Parliament that somebody else used his corporate credit card, drivers licence, mobile and hotel room phones to call prostitutes, and he then unwittingly approved thousands of dollars in payment. Maybe that's how it happened, but so far no evidence has been advanced in support.

How the minority government, with both government and leader struggling in opinion polls, deals with the ongoing scandal as report after report thumps down is anyone's guess, but the Opposition and media are going to make the most of it. What I'm saying here is that the issue is bound to continue on the front pages, and we should serve our readers by providing the facts. In accordance with wiki policy, of course. --Pete (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

On the point about NPOV, Thomson's position is very much a fringe view, attracting 5-10% support in opinion polls. About the only sources offering more than lukewarm support for his conspiracy theory are partisan political blogs. Even his own party forced him to leave. It's not a matter of slanting the story one way or another, it's the difficulty of finding any good sources that back up his views. --Pete (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Coatrack

The article currently lacks a master narrative. Sources are used solely to steal quotes and editorialise, and no source is used to discuss what composes the subject of this article. No source is used to locate a narrative of this article's subject. No source is used to weight to give emphasis to sections of this articles' subject, rather, original research regarding the contents of this article's subject predominates. Newspaper articles and semi-video web content exist covering the totality of this incident; as do op-eds by appropriately qualified and significant Australian newspaper columnists. In contrast with what this article should be, this is currently garbage created out of whole cloth and "encyclopaedia" editor's inventions. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Craig Thomson affair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Thomson affair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I have notified a number of editors involved in this article, but in case I missed anyone, I'm also notifying here. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete it. Salt it. Better still, nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the AfD discussion, I see a mention of Utegate, which on examination looks like an accurate description of a far less significant or notable political scandal. The significance is that it led to the downfall of Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader, which on the face of it was good news for Kevin Rudd. The level of detail, the language used, the sources and conclusions look like an excellent model for this article. The only thing it lacks is a picture of the vehicle in question. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for some "basic" information

My initial read a minute ago tells me that this article has many landmines - I do not want to add any. Just wondering if someone could add something to the lead to let the uninformed know: 1) when the "alleged" actions "may have" taken place (I do not know the story - my use of "be careful" words is an attempt to avoid stirring up a hornets nest) 2) when the "alleged" actions became an issue in Australia. Perhaps something like "In 200x Mr. so-and-so alleged improper actions occurred during 200x by Mr Thomson while he was in the role of XX at organization YY. Investigated in 200x, with report issued in month zz of 200x that reconfirms and/or debunks any/all claims of impropriety. Mr. Thomson denies all claims (or denies most claims, or...?)" This just helps with context for the rest of the article and helps the rest of the wiki-world who are not as close to the issue as the editors of this article. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want to roll back past Collect's bold deletion of a few hours ago, you'll get all that information. Failing that, the article needs a major rewrite. --Pete (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget about it. I'll check back next year and see what you folks work out. It is always hard to create this type of article while events are ongoing. It is still hard years after the fact (as in political edit wars on Airbus affair & John Kerry military service controversy), but time does provide some court/body data to close the loop on many of the questions that need to be answered rather than speculated about. Good luck to all of you, for or against, in getting (closer to) the truth in the future.Jmg38 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I've changed the lead to read The Craig Thomson affair refers to a long-running Australian political controversy involving allegations that union funds and credit cards administered by Craig Thomson before entering parliament were used to pay for escorts, to withdraw more than $100,000 in cash, and to bankroll the election campaign for his federal seat of Dobell.. The allegations are supported by the source provided, but I have toned them down to match what Thomson himself admitted to in Parliament on 21 May 2012, though he did not admit any wrong-doing. As the allegations were made in 2009 and it is now 2012, I think "long-running" is accurate and appropriate. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it back - it was less opinionated/undue before. - perhaps a consensus of support will arise here - please allow discussion and support to arise for disputed changes on the talkpage as per WP:BRD - thanks Youreallycan 05:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. What's undue about it? The allegations are the focus of the controversy, and those listed have all been admitted by Thomson himself. --Pete (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It was just more neutral before your edit - the lede is not a place to add claims like that - bankroll? which are disputed - they can't be explained and expanded on there - so - the basics and then let them be explained in the body of the article - Youreallycan 06:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A direct lift from the source there. What's to dispute anyway? Thomson has admitted each of those items. We can't pretend he denied it when we have him saying so in Parliament to a national audience. When talking about the findings of the FWA report, we're going to be summarising a 1 100 page document, and the lead will include a summary of that. But happy to wait until we get there. --Pete (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And again -- Wikipedia does not have articles to be summaries of long reports. The reader can read the report - all we do is list the main facts - not the whole schmear. Collect (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what a summary is? A list of the main facts? The FWA report is central to the controversy, as is Thomson's statement to Parliament two weeks later. This article needs to link to both, so readers may check the complete source documents, but we're not going to be doing much beyond pulling selected facts out of them, or preferably we find a summary that's already published and link to that as well, but we aren't going to do more than summarise that in its turn. We find good sources representing the main views, string our summaries together in some sort of coherent organised method, and invite the reader to click the links if they want more detail., Ultimately the lede summarise our whole article. The thing in a nutshell.

On that note, the label "Craig Thomson affair", as the ultimate summarisation, gives half its weight to the affair/events/drama that binds various bodies such as the Health Services Union, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Labor Party, Parliament and the wider community. It's not about Thomson exclusively but the political impact, especially the impact on the hung parliament, where votes (and government itself) can depend on a single member. If Craig Thomson is declared bankrupt, or found guilty of a serious crime, he has to leave parliament, and the government would change, which is why the thing is the intense focus of both Gillard and Abott, often to the detriment of normal policy debate. We could call this the HSU affair - and maybe we should, given the likelihood of more controversy coming from that direction - but Thomson is the key as he is in parliament and the government depends on his vote, and to be frank, the salacious aspects of the allegations against him fuel the public interest. It's the few thousand dollars spent on escorts from a union credit card that hit the buttons in community discussion, not the far larger amounts of cash withdrawals, or election expenses.

While I've got your attention, Collect, why did you label this as a "silly season" affair? It's been in the public eye for over three years, it has generated prolonged public discussion, it has the potential to change the historical course of the nation, given Abbott's intentions to roll back much of Gillard's policy structure such as the carbon tax, the mining tax and the broadband network. It's more than a summer story. Not that it's summer at the moment, especially here in Canberra, where I scrape the ice off my car very morning. --Pete (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Over three years? Nah. This issue only has the current level of coverage because of the hung parliament, and that hasn't been three years yet. The ONLY reason we have an article is because the Opposition wants power, and sees getting rid of Thomson as one possible pathway to that goal. I think it's telling that you omitted the Liberal Party from your list of interested parties above. Without its interest, this would be just another possible case of misuse of union funds. Maybe in the news for a day or two (probably not even front page), and then forgotten. HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your assumptions, and I've addressed their falsity elsewhere, the affair has been front page news for three years, since early 2009, when Rudd had a comfortable majority. While some may wish the affair would disappear or be whitewashed away, the fact is that here it is, Thomson's tweets make Annabel Crabbe's phone buzz. It's not the Libs who want Thomson out of the picture, it's the working stiffs of the union movement. Heaven help the poor bloke if he ever gets sick and has to eat hospital food prepared by his ex-comrades! --Pete (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Boy, it's obvious who you think the guilty party is here. Too much opinion! Just step back a little. Probably my BIGGEST concern is the trial by media and Liberal Party that's underway. Very bad for every Australian. Think of this encyclopaedia in 50 years time. How much detail and opinion will readers then want to see? That's always a good approach. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you listen to or read Thomson's speech in Parliament? We could source the whole lot to his own statements right there. How about we work together to tell the story here in a fair, accurate and truthful manner. I'm not going to be a party to any whitewashing. As for your crystal ball, it's been about sixty years since the Petrov Affair and we've got a whole detailed article on that one that nobody is objecting to. You could help write the article, you know. How about you write a para on the tense situation in Parliament and we ask IP to write one about Thomson's speech in Parliament, which he should know intimately. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The more I see of your opinionated work here, the more you're convincing me that this article should not exist. It's just a perfect place to hang one's prejudices, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reinserted the 2009 SMH source here. It marked the beginning of the affair in the public awareness. Before that, it was a minor story, after this point, it gained wide coverage throughout Australia, which extends to the present day. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Coöperative editing strategy

Given the sensitivity of this ongoing affair, the sometimes heated views expressed by some, and the fact that one passionate editor is unable to edit the article due to using a shared IP address as his account, how about we take things slowly, sort out wording and sources here a paragraph at a time, and uncover any issues and snares before we edit the article? If there is any support (or otherwise) for this strategy, add comments here and we'll see how we go. Otherwise, I guess we'll just edit as normal, though given the level of tension over the weekend, I'd like to at least try to get everybody working together rather than edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't point the finger at the IP editor at all. The article was opinionated, not NPOV and was basically rubbish - complaining about that was a good thing. The tension was created by the non neutral low quality article that existed. As for everyone working together on such a partisan political article - in my experience of wiki similar articles it won't happen - partisan and people affiliated to oppositions parties show up and human nature takes over - - You, Pete, are the user that created this article and as I have seen a couple of your edits - you are partisan in regard to this living person/issue, and have a large responsibility in all the disruption that has resulted. Youreallycan 05:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor is unable to edit the article directly, at least for a few more days. He has a keen interest and it would be unfair to deny him participation. I'm not saying that we'll get a consensus here before putting material up in the article, but at least we'll be able to identify material that is problematic before we get to the edit-warring stage. I'm not sure that I'm partisan in any of this. Wanting to see the story told accurately doesn't mean that I want the opposition to take over. I just won't support a white-wash, that's all. --Pete (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your content creation has been derided, reported to multiple noticeboards and removed and sent to AFD - it was that bad/opinionated/POV - Youreallycan 05:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

All reliably sourced. As I've indicated, the hard part is finding balancing points of view that are well sourced and credible. I think Richo summed it up well here, when talking about the escorts. Thomson's response to this is pretty weak. --Pete (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are just not getting it - Pete - you can reliably source a biased report. - Personally I think , you are so partisan/ so opinionated that you can't see it or just don't want to. Youreallycan 06:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You may have to explain your point of view a bit more fully, please. I'm not seeing what you are getting at here. --Pete (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, as you would expect, I agree totally with slow, cautious editing and seeking consensus before making any changes, so why on earth did you do exactly the opposite when you changed the lead three hours ago, after absolutely no discussion? I really cannot make any sense of your behaviour. (Don't try to tell us the changes were necessary. I'm sure you believed that about every similarly unilateral edit you've made in the past week.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Check the time stamps. I wasn't talking about gaining consensus before making changes, but in identifying problems before they get to the edit-war stage. Do you have anything to say about the content? --Pete (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WTF do the timestamps have to do with it. You unilaterally changed the article without any discussion at all, then 11 minutes later recommended that "we take things slowly, sort out wording and sources here a paragraph at a time, and uncover any issues and snares before we edit the article". That's not rational behaviour. Maybe you had an epiphany in those 11 minutes. Miracles do occur. And no, I have no intention of saying anything about the content in this section. That would be completely inappropriate. Again, I cannot comprehend why you would want anyone to do something so confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the changes to the lead and then thought, "Well shoot, we're just going to go down the same track if we edit this the regular way. Maybe a different strategy can avoid all the personal attacks we saw yesterday.". Dunno if it's an epiphany, but I thought it was reasonable and rational. --Pete (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank YRC for continuing to work on this article, despite his wish expressed elsewhere that it be deleted. It's in a poor condition now, but it can be improved. I had hoped that other editors active on the talk page would work toward improvement, but despite a day of contributions in other places, they have chosen not to do so. If the article is to be improved, then it won't improve itself. Some of the discussion has been very useful, especially on the AfD page, where editors have chosen to share their comments, and have raised a number of concerns, which I shall endeavour to address. One point that struck me was that the affair is little known outside Australia, and of course when somebody comes in cold, it's going to appear pretty devastating. I don't really expect too many people to read the full 1 100 page pdf report of FWA, but I do urge interested parties to at least thumb through it, look at the level of detail, the logic used to support the conclusions, the findings etc. I'll spend some time today working on the article, using the strategy outlined here. Comments or co-operation welcome, of course. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Structure

In that spirit, I'd like to propose the following sections after the lead (which of course summarises the whole article):

1. Craig Thomson - brief statement of who he is, his career, his role in parliament.
2. Publication - the affair really began in April 2009 when the allegations were made public, a few days after the forerunner to FWA commenced its inquiry. The Sydney Morning Herald broke the story, causing a sensation.
3. Minority government - although the allegations created a stir, the real importance of the affair lies in the finely balanced parliament after the 2010 election, when the independents held the balance of power and Abbott commenced his extraordinary attack on Gillard, who only had to lose one vote to lose government.
4. Defamation case - the withdrawal and settlement of the defamation case against the SMH.
5. FWA report - the release of the report and a brief list of the allegations against Thomson. Thomson's suspension from the ALP.
6. Reaction in parliament - the activities in parliament following the release including the motion to suspend Thomson and his statement.
7. Counter-allegations - Thomson's allegations against various HSU officials.

After that, we're pretty much at the current day, and we can take it as it comes. And there's more inquires to come, including the possible Federal Court action, police inquiries, the Privileges Committee investigation. --Pete (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If it survives the weight of the article needs moving to the bigger picture - and there is some suport for a rename also - I would support - Health Services Union expenses affair - personally as advice, Pete imo you need to back off from such a high profile contribution to this article. Youreallycan 05:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Thompson affair" is the string regularly found in headline links in Australian newspaper websites. We follow the preponderance of weight-worthy sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to let someone else do the writing. I think the story needs to be told because it is such a media frenzy here, but I don't need to be the one to tell it! --Pete (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you indicate where you've derived this structure and weighting plan from? In particular, if you've used news reviews from Australia's leading newspapers? Without sourcing for the structure of weighting the article would remain a coatrack. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of telling the story chronologically, focusing on the controversy as it affected groups other than Thomson. The ALP, parliament, the union movement, the public. Thinking about it, there should probably be a section on the HSU itself. I'm having a hard time following the various branches and officials and how they relate, and given the recent police raid on the HSU head office, this thing is likely to have legs in that direction. --Pete (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're using original research to weight and structure the article. Please stop. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, Fifelfoo, as problematic as this article may be, article structure is by definition always original research. We don't, for example, copy how EB structures there articles. Or, if we're writing an article that draws on disparate sources (say, for example, any article on a broad concept, like Quantum mechanics or Baseball), we have to figure out ourselves how to distribute the various pieces of information. Weight is judged by looking at an overview of the RS on the topic, with due consideration to the nature of the sources (i.e., we don't try to figure out for current events what is the exact level of coverage on any one point across thousands of sources). These are editorial decisions. Personally, though, I think the whole discussion is a waste of time because the AfD is trending very strongly right now towards either merger or deletion...I don't know why people are thinking that massively expanding the article (or, perhaps I should say re-expanding to its old length before the smart cuts by previously uninvolved editors) is somehow going to fix the fundamental problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles available in the News review sections of Australian newspapers, two of which are both respected broadsheets and have readily available recent archives, that discuss the entire affair and present a standard guide to weighting the discussion of this. There are field reviews of Quantum mechanics, and scholarly monographs discussing baseball. If we do not rely on reliable sources for article structure and weighting, we get coatracking like the proposed weighting and structure above, cherry picking quotations from involved parties rather than relying on journalists. Not using RS for structure and weight leads directly to OR, SYNTH and COATRACK. Australian journalism has a rather clear genre of in depth and comprehensive analysis of major stories, the ABC's content is here which provides a very very different structure from the one proposed. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you mark it up and we'll look at it, please? --Pete (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Name

When I created this article on the release of the FWA report, I called it the Craig Thomson affair, but my alternate choice was HSU controversy or something similar. At that time there was nothing concrete to report about the other activities going on in the HSU, so I stayed with CTa, but if and when charges are laid against other members, then the scope will certainly widen. I think that's going to happen, but that's crystal-balling. I certainly have no objection to a name change along those lines --Pete (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's forgiveable crystal-balling, since it allows it to become more WP:NPOV, and reduces the WP:BLP issues - especially a possible issue with WP:BLPCRIME, since he's not been convicted of anything. Note: at this point I still support outright deletion, but I think it needs to be given the WP:TNT treatment even if an article on this subject (with a more neutral name) ends up being kept. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Gillard Government

Looking at the Gillard Government article, there is a prominent section discussing this affair, and mentioning Peter Slipper explaining the situation wrt the tight numbers in the House. I present it below and note that there has been no heated discussion on the talk page there, despite many diverse contributors working more or less harmoniously. Possibly this relevant and uncontroversial content could be used as the basis for a more detailed treatment here?

The Government's numbers in the House of Representatives were affected by the resignation of Peter Slipper from the Liberal National Party in order that he could serve as a Labor aligned independent and as Speaker of the House of Representatives; as well as by the suspension of Labor back bencher Craig Thomson from the ALP as a result of the Craig Thomson affair.

Labor MP Craig Thomson was the subject of extensive allegations brought before Fair Work Australia, concerning alleged mis-use of union funds during his time as a leader of the Labor affiliated Health Services Union (HSU), prior to his entry to Parliament. Presiding secretary of the union, Kathy Jackson, told ABC television in February 2012 that, given that the investigation had been underway since April 2009 and was unresolved by February 2012, she suspected the government had intervened to stall the inquiry. A by-election would result in which the government could lose its majority.[9] When Fair Work Australia (FWA) handed a report on the HSU alleging 181 breaches (including 76 criminal breaches) related to the union's finances to the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in April 2012, the DPP announced that it could not investigate the breaches because FWA had not provided a "Brief of Evidence". The Australian Council of Trade Unions suspended the HSU.[10] Kathy Jackson said the alleged breaches related to Thompson, and that it appeared that the FWA was trying to protect the government.[11] Julia Gillard repeated her confidence in Thompson, while the opposition leader Tony Abbott called on Gillard to expel Thompson from the government and for the Australian Federal Police to raid FWA's offices in order to be able to use the contents of the report for a brief of evidence.

Civil and criminal allegations were made against Speaker Slipper in April 2012 and he announced an intention to step aside pending conclusion of the criminal investigation. The Gillard Government initially resisted calls from the Opposition and Crossbenchers for Slipper to step aside for the duration of any civil investigations. On 29 April, Gillard announced that she wanted to dispel a "dark cloud" hanging over Parliament and wanted Labor MP Craig Thompson to suspend his membership of the Labor Party and sit on the cross-benches and for Speaker Slipper to maintain his suspension from the role of Speaker until all the completion of investigations.[12] Labor MP Anna Burke was to take up the duties of Speaker. The development left Labor with 70 seats on the floor of the House of Representatives, to the Liberals 71 - with two independents aligned to Liberal-National Coalition; Andrew Wilkie acting as a non-aligned independent; and with Slipper, Thompson, a Green and two further independents remaining Labor aligned.[13] Soon after, West Australian National, Tony Crook announced that he would sitting and voting with the Liberal-National Coaltion.[14]

After FWA's findings against Thomson were made public (alleging that he had misused $500,000 in union funds to purchase prostitution services, as well as to aid his political campaign for Parliament and for personal cash withdrawals) the MP addressed Parliament from the crossbenches, and in an emotional speech in May 2012, said that he was the victim of a conspiracy perpetrated by former colleagues and accused the media and opposition of seeking to deny him his right to the presumption of innocence.[15]

Comments, as ever, invited from those seeking improvement. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Saying "as ever" is simply a lie. You have largely ignored comments from other editors before making unilateral changes to the article. And if you want to save this article, I suggest you stop editing now. Every edit you make in your usual style makes it more likely this will be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Number 4 branch finances?

In the article we have the line: The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009. and is is supposedly supported by this source,

Could those who are inserting and re-inserting please point out exactly where the source supports the statement? Perhaps attempting to change the sentence away from the passive tone would help make the problem more clear. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Yesterday the secretary of the branch responsible for the petition hit out at Fair Work's handling of the HSU issues, describing its response to the petition as nonsensical ." From the source. Last line. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now you've experienced what HiLo48 and I have had to deal with yourself. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) PS: the preceding comment ( a response to Qwyrxian) has been moved maliciously moved around several times for the purposes of harassment. It is in the correct place as per WP:TALK, but the harasser fails to see that, in the same way the harasser failed to note what the article cited by Qwyrxian actually said. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PPS - relocated again. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

indeed. Let's just look at the statement, and see if the source supports it. It doesn't. It says that the members of one branch petitioned for the finances of the whole union to be investigated, not the other way round, as our article alleges.. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's leave it your way, to keep things sweet, but may I direct you to Example 2 of WP:INDENT, which says,

If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level.

I replied to Qwyxian over an hour before you did, but it's no big deal really, except that it would be polite to work within the framework of wikipractice that smoothes our work here. Removing the comments of other users entirely, without a good reason, is very poor practice indeed. Let alone repeatedly, especially when informed of the problem. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is my final response to you, Skyring: stop your harassment. You moved my response only to annoy and provoke. I have done my best to ignore you, but when you continue lying about and defaming me in the same way you've lied about and defamed the subject of this article, your nonsense must be addressed. Firstly, you moved my comments and then added another comment in the hope I'd use the (undo) function to restore them from where you've moved them, which I did; mea culpa. Secondly, you have misrepresented the accidental removal of your comments on this page by my use of (undo) as a deliberate act of malice; wrong, my use of the (undo) function deleted your comments and I didn't know any comment had been added by you in the interim. Thirdly, you might want to look at your own formatting before being critical of mine; it's worse than a dog's breakfast. Finally, I am not responding or replying to you again in any public space, and any posts you make on my (this IP's) talk page will be deleted unread. Given your history, affiliations, and behavior I cannot assume good faith with you - so AFAIC you won't exist any more in my universe after the AIN matter is cleared up, and I suggest it stays that way. Is this clear enough? Good. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

At the top of every edit box for a talk page, there is a note saying "...Please respect the talk page guidelines..." It was placed there by the good folk at Wikipedia for the guidance of all editors, and it is certainly worth reading and reviewing by all editors, including myself. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. There's the criticism supported. Keep on reading. What, exactly, is being criticised and who is doing it? --Pete (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How about something like this:

In April and July 2009, members of a Victorian branch of the Health Services Union requested Fair Work Australia to investigate the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Thomson was federal secretary. Their petition was rejected by FWA on a technicality.

The way it currently reads, it sounds as if the whole union was requesting an investigation of the accounts of the Victorian branch. The above wording is almost a direct quote from paragraph seven of the source. I'm not sure this needs to be in the article at all, but let's discuss it, shall we? --Pete (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Claim is:

The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009.

The source states:

In July 2009 Fair Work Australia rejected a petition for an investigation by the Victorian-based Health Services Union (HSU) No. 4 branch on the curious grounds the national union did not technically have members and was not therefore subject to a members' petition.

Which clearly supports the exact and precise wording of the claim above. Unless, of course, you find that the word "criticised" is wrong? I think the tenor of the article is sufficiently clear for using that word - but the alternate wording would then be:

The FWA has declined to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009 on the basis that the national union did not technically have any members.

Is that your preference? Collect (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please carefully read the source wording which you supplied. It is the Victorian No. 4 branch petitioning for an investigation. Not the whole union. And what are they petitioning for? An investigation into the finances of the national office. Here's the relevant wording from the source:

The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary.

FWA didn't decline to investigate the finances of the Victorian no. 4 branch, because nobody asked them to do that. They were asked to do a full investigation into the national union's finances, a different thing entirely. Apart from the criticism of FWA aspect, which isn't disputed, your preferred version has it backwards. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW you would absolutely accept:

"The FWA refused a petition to investigate general union finances made by a petition of union members on the grounds that the national union itself has no members"

Correct? Eliding the "branch #4" part entirely? (I see an ambiguity in the source wording - but certainly not enough to allow for wholesale excision of the claim). Collect (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the branch needs to be mentioned, because otherwise it's confusing to say that union members petitioned but the union had no members. How does that work? I have no objection to this information being included, all I ask is that our source back up what we say. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The rationale appears to be that branches of the union have no standing with regard to the national union - the fact that it was branch 4 (Medical Scientists Association of Victoria) made no difference in the rationale tendered - which appears to be the gist of the claim. So we are left with the version I present above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea seems to be, as best I understand it, to present the many and varied sources of information available, to those seeking information and understanding and we call the result an encyclopaedia. How do you think the average reader would react to your wording, and how would they see it as relating to the subject of this article? I think that they would say that we dropped the ball in delivering good and relevant information. -Pete (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well -- as a reader I would have zero idea as to why "branch 4" is an important piece of information -- perhaps you can tell me why it is important that "branch 4" was the source as opposed to, say, "branch 2"? Can you tell me whether "branch 2" would be more or less important to the reader? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As you recall, I wanted the statement removed, especially when it erroneously told the reader that it was that specific branch's finances which were being investigated, a version you and others defended. The story here, such as it is, is that a branch petitioned FWA to investigate the national union's finances during the specific period that Thomson was federal secretary, ending two years before the petition made to FWA. The criticism of FWA is that they rejected this call on a technicality based on a quirk of the structure of the union. --21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to simply accept the WP:CONSENSUS that the claim made is supported by the reliable source? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't support any statement that is wrong, confusing or misleading. Nor should you. I've put forward my preferred wording above - to what, precisely, do you take exception? --Pete (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS and recognize that tendentious refusal to accept the consensus is quite likely to have an unfavourable result. Cheers. I presented wording saimed at precisely meeting your concerns, and you seem to reject it out of hand - which is not how Wikipedia works. Collect (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. It needs more tinkering and I'm happy to work on that with you. The current wording is, however, unsupported by the source, as discussed. Perhaps you'd like to replace it with your version which is accurate but opaque? --Pete (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, it appears the quote was moved and changed a little after I initially added it, but it does need correction. The quote presently says "The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009." I would suggest that it is changed to the following: "The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU following a petition by HSU No.4 Branch members in July 2009" (changes in bold). The cited news article does state that members of the No.4 Branch requested an investigation, but FWA knocked it on the head, and then the No.4 chap referred to the reasons for refusing an investigation as "nonsensical". What do you and Qwyrxian think about this re-wording as proposed? One21dot216dot (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I support your wording in the previous comment. --Pete (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling for more eyes on this section here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics as a first step to sorting this out. I'd also like to add in more criticism of FWA, as supported by articles like this one. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Excessive off topic discussion

- I have decided to not give a fuck Wikipedia is great. It has millions of reasonably well balanced articles, giving just about the right amount of detail and coverage to their topic. But there is one area it doesn't deal with well. That's those current topics, often with new material arriving fairly frequently, where somewhat obsessed editors with strong emotional involvement work incredibly hard to impose their ideas on an article. This article is a classic example. Other similar ones I've tried to influence in recent times involve several related to the current US Presidential campaign (supporters of both the major candidates think I support the other side), and the Trayvon Martin story. Eventually Wikipedia will have good articles on these topics. Right now they're full of crap. They won't be properly fixed until time and stability leads the obsessed editors to move on to something else, and some calmer, wiser heads can prevail. (Then we'll have a whole new bunch of crappy, unstable articles to deal with.) So, in the interests of my sanity, and the welfare of some other people I can do a lot more good for in the short term, I am going to implement one of Wikipedia's most useful guidelines - Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism. See you all elsewhere on the project. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The essay you mention is excellent, and as I noted earlier, hatred, selfishness and obsession do not belong here. Or indeed in anybody's hearts. Eventually we must lose all attachment to everything we hold dear and there is no getting away from that fact. However, if one edits political articles, one is going to cop a fair bit of attachment, because it is in the nature of humanity to be strongly attached to views on politics, religion and football. Everybody has a favourite team. (Mine is Fitzroy, which is kind of tragic, but I'll get over it eventually). Shouting down ones's political opponents on Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect in the real world, nor should it. We report the story, not become it. And when there is a story, we use reliable sources, we take a neutral point of view, and we discuss the issues politely, with respect for our fellow editors, who may hold different views. I personally don't mind what goes into Wikipedia, so long as the rules are followed. One or two cranks may distort an article, but get enough eyes on it and it sorts itself out. I can accept that, even if it doesn't work out the way I'd prefer. I say to myself, what a boring old world it would be if everyone had my opinions and perceptions. And how woefully managed it would be, because nobody would get their tax in on time. Thank goodness for other people! (Oh, and thank goodness for Obama - what a lovely man he is. I'm barracking for Barack.)--Pete (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Both of you stop blabbing on the talkpage your personal opinions - Youreallycan 23:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomson's claims against Jeff Jackson

Looking at this statement in the article, In his speech to the House of Representatives on 21 May 2012 Thomson said that Jeff Jackson—a former HSU executive member and the former husband of HSU National Secretary Kathy Jackson—was responsible for the spending on prostitutes., supposedly supported by this source, I invite editors to search the document for the name "Jeff Jackson". It does not come up, because Thomson never made this claim in his speech to parliament. He hinted at it earlier, but never made the claim directly, even under Parliamentary privilege. I'm removing this as per BLP. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Live with it. I suspect this article will, in fact, be deleted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It remains a BLP violation, and as it is unsourced, it goes. Please use the established procedures for resolving this matter, and you are invited to contribute at WP:BLPN#Craig Thomson affair. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Onedot, for your revised wording, which is supported by the sources. i make two points:

1. The allegations that Jackson used union funds for escorts are sourced, but not Thomson's claim that it was Jackson who used Thomson's union credit card.
2. FWA did not say that Jackson repaid money to the HSU for spending on escorts. The sources given don't support this statement. In fact, that was Thomson's insinuation, and FWA rejected it, as noted two paragraphs after. --Pete (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Are One Nation members editing this article?

Are any past or present members of the right wing racist hate group, One Nation, editing this article? What about any members of the National Party? A conflict of interest has been present in editing this article. One21dot216dot (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why has there been no response here? Are people ashamed? One21dot216dot (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because no one is? And maybe definitely you need to stop worrying about who is editing, and focus on the edits themselves. Your continual drive to threaten and out people is unacceptable. I'm shocked no one blocked you at ANI for edit warring to provide links to out people. But now that that's done, focus on the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article

Given the renaming of this article, I'd like to start discussion on what topics should be included, and what sources we can use. The FWA report made findings against three officers or ex-officers of the HSU:

• Craig Thomson
• Kathy Jackson
• Michael Williamson

We should have sections describing the history and findings against each of these three. Thomson has attracted the most media coverage, due to his vote in Parliament being critical to the current government, and the most serious allegations were made against him. However, given the ongoing inquiries, court action, police rates and so on, the other two are likely to need more space here as time goes by. Quoting an ABC report of a few hours ago: This is unlikely to be the last we hear of the Health Services Union. There are two police investigations underway; there may well be civil action, and then there's the endless stream of damaging documents that pours out from all sides. Kathy Jackson unleashed hell when she started to pursue Craig Thomson. Along the way the reputations of all unions, Fair Work Australia and the Gillard Government took a hit and there's no doubt that part of the legacy of this affair is an emboldened Coalition, pondering a far-reaching inquiry into the labour movement if it's returned to power.[16][17] --Pete (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we should have sections describing the claims relating to each three. Not history. Not reams and reams of crap. I suspect that even after info about the other people is added, the article should be shorter than it is now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about reams and reams of crap, just when did Crikey become a reliable source? --03:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bank on the thing becoming too much shorter now, once the existing inquiries and other branches are added, nor at any time in the future! Onedot has his head down and is going for it. I think we'll end up with a balanced and coherent article, so long as we two can work together, get a few other eyes on it now and then. But honestly, I can't see it getting any shorter. The HSU saga could easily fill a book as it is. --Pete (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Then write a book. Don't try to turn an encyclopedia article, which should be a broad overview of only the most salient facts, into a retelling of every little detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Books will be written about this - I'm just amused at the notion that the HSU thing could be summed up in a few paragraphs. The Jackson-Thomson-Williamson dynamic is a complex one, and it's good to see Onedot putting some work into it. --08:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Despite the existence of surveys of the topic, Skyring/Pete continues to assert original research in the form of proposed WEIGHTings that bear no resemblance to reliable sources' overviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Such as...? --Pete (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You've cited them before, go look through your edits and editing plan, read WP:WEIGHT and base your weighting on the secondary sources that credibly summarise the entire incident. Come back with a weighting plan with footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No offence, but I'm not a mind reader. If you have something in mind, trot it out. I've referred to the FWA report, which divides its findings amongst three individuals, and Onedot, bless his heart, is working on other reports, naming others. We can work out relative involvements in the various reports, but I suggest that notability would be generally based on amount of good mainstream media coverage. No matter how you cut it, Thomson's not a bit player in this affair. --Pete (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't give half a shit for parliamentary politics, but I do care about weight and synth. Weighting this article based on your impressions of reports (primary sources) is synth and coatracking. Go find the media's high level summaries and weight and structure out of those. This has been repeatedly explained to the editors deeply involved in the article, and I'm seeing sections with Expand templates on them, and not a single source indicating that the section should exist at all. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No me neither and I agree with your comment - please either add some content to the sections or remove the template/s. - Youreallycan 15:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove the sections, perhaps? I added the Michael Williamson one, so I'll work on that. Fifelfoo, did you have any particular media high-level summary in mind? Structuring our article on a media article is a new one on me, and if you could point out previous examples where this has worked successfully, I'd be obliged for your help. There are any number of media articles about the affair(s) along the lines of this one and they all say much the same thing. --Pete (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson's role in the affair

Given that 150 out of 180 findings of the FWA report relate to Craig Thomson, a notable figure in his own right, being an MP and all, I question this removal of his photograph, citing BLP concerns. Perhaps these concerns could be more fully expressed by the editor? Wikipedia operates on a Bold Revert Discuss cycle, and rather than edit-war over bold changes, if one is reverted, we then discuss it and seek consensus. A tried and effective procedure. --Pete (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

He has been indicted on ... nothing. Tried on ... nothing. Convicted of ... nothing. Placing his picture here when no formal charges have been leveled in any court at all is a WP:BLP abuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is nonsense. We can and do have articles on scandals that have never gone to any court, and we have images of the major participants. This article went to BLPN, attracted no criticism, and nobody said a word about the photograph. The reliable sources we use all have photographs of Thomson. He's on the front page and heading up the news bulletins. Please state the exact BLP provision upon which you level your charge of abuse. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Craig Thompson is scarcely an important person for purposes of saying anything more than a rreport was issued - placing his picture here would be an UNDUE emphasis on the report, where it is clear the focus of this new article is not on Thompson. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And what crime did our article ever accuse Thomson of committing? He is not so accused n the Fair Work Australia report. Can you please outline the exact basis of your concern? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Placing his picture here gives stronger weight to the report than it warrants, unless you wish to imply Thompson had done ssomething wwrong. And this talk page reinforces the thought that this is the aim of having his picture in this article - others do not seem to think it would help the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomson is the main subject of a report by the government body Fair Work Australia. It made numerous findings that he had breached union rules, lied to the inquiry and so on. That is wrongdoing, but falling short of criminal activity. It is not, for example, a crime to spend union funds on personal pleasures. The scandal is major and ongoing. Naturally there are those who wish to push one political view or another, and the union itself is full of factions and conflict. The government has now dismissed the union leadership and taken over administration of its affairs.[18][19] You have taken the trouble to involve yourself in this article and you have made many claims about it, few of which stand up to scrutiny. I get the feeling that you have not read any of the numerous sources provided. I don't mind if someone who is not Australian is unaware of the details, I don't follow the various political scandals that rise in other nations, but we have detailed articles on them. What's different here, and why precisely are you attempting to censor a major story? --Pete (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

== Report from the Australian Electoral Commission ==:Many thanks

The AEC Report has been added to the article. It makes interesting reading (22 pages in PDF) and concentrates on Craig Thomson's election-related spending in Dobell. It also tears many of the 'findings' in the FWA report apart. For example, the two staff employed by Thomson which the FWA report claimed were solely employed for the election were in fact employed before Thomson was even per-selected for the seat of Dobell. One21dot216dot (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Could you find a media summary and use that as a source for a short mention in the appropriate place, please? While having links to primary sources is extremely useful, we can't just provide a compendium of links and let readers wade through the often lengthy reports. We need a super condensed executive summary that covers the main points. --Pete (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)