Talk:Julia Gillard

Bot-inserted trivial pronunciations at tops of Australian bio articles

I've removed this one and complained to the ?Estonian runner of the bot User:TXiKiBoT. Gillard is readily pronouncable by any English-speaker, and it's inappropriate to clutter the opening with one of those IPA equivalents that hardly anyone can decipher, anyway. To start with, the IPA was rhotic, with the post-vocalic R, which is not the way Australians or Gillard herself (or Welsh people) pronounce the word. Second, it was silent on the emphasis on the first syllable. If anyone knows of other Australian bio articles that have been interfered with by this bot, please let me know. Tony (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And I see that while I wrote that post, someone called Mschilz20, recently registered, came along and reverted me, calling me a vandal. I've reinstated my version and expect discussion here if there's a problem. Tony (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing this: few English speakers (native or otherwise) are going to have trouble with 'Julia Gillard'. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree; there are a bunch of Australian bios that could use some careful pronunciation guidance, but this really isn't one of them. Frickeg (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

carbon tax/ETS promise

Can anyone find a reference article that states whether she promised an Emissions Trading Scheme before the last election? I do remember seeing a video of it but can't find out which program it was or any online reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.108.199 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel the section on Gillard's Climate Change policy in this article to be partisan and disingenuous. Gillard was on National TV claiming that there would be no carbon tax under any government she leads. Her Deputy went so far as to state that any suggestion Labor would introduce a carbon tax after the election were "hysterical" and "nonsense". In this context, for the article to state in relation to Gillard's subsequent introduction of a carbon tax: "which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise.[103]" is disingenuous. It is widely held by all in the entire country, except for that small band of hard-core Government apologists, that it straight up IS a broken promise. The fact that it is a broken promise is not a "claim", it is manifest fact. Can we please change this part of the article to reflect this fact?Dickmojo (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Gillard alone has not introduced a carbon tax. The government has, with the assistance of the independents and Greens. Many would suggest that it was demanded of the government by the Greens. It's our job to accurately describe what has happened. Attaching a particular, politically loaded label to it does not add encyclopaedic value. Readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Julia Gillard's carbon price promise was in The Australian the day before the 2010 election, which begins "Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term." It seems to come down to the semantics of whether the scheme is a "tax" or a "price on carbon emissions"—the government and its supporters will say the Clean Energy Future scheme is a package of mechanisms including a carbon price, not a tax and hence there was no broken promise, and that Labor was indicating they would in fact introduce a carbon price or other pollution reduction scheme in this term. Those who oppose the government will define it as a tax, and therefore a crucial broken promise or a lie. That statements about this from both the government and opposition can be interpreted in different ways, the best we can do is to list those statements, and let readers make their own interpretation as HiLo48 suggests, without applying politically loaded terms such as "promise" and "lie". --Canley (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. We should report the statement accurately, allowing readers to determine for themselves if the carbon tax is a carbon tax. My impression is that the only people who aren't calling it a carbon tax are those who are keen to make Gillard technically honest. A rather circular piece of argument which convinces nobody. --Pete (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a good source for her statement here. Interestingly, Gillard also said she wants to build the infrastructure which she is now blaming others for. The issue of credibility is a major one for Gillard, and the carbon tax promise, which we are sure to see many times as a Coalition ad in the next election campaign, is difficult for her to counter. --Pete (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I like your edit to the article, but I do wish you could keep your commentary and your hatred of Gillard and Labor off this page. It adds nothing to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon. I had not noticed anything which could be construed as hatred. What I dislike is pushing propaganda - from any partisan group - as encyclopaedic truth. I'm really looking forward to seeing Bob Carr as Prime Minister. --Pete (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I make no comment on the credibility of that. I will just again ask you to please drop the political commentary. Your opinion of Bob Carr is part of that. It's both irrelevant and inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're telling me I hate Labor, and yet I prefer Bob Carr (or Kim Beazley, if it comes to that) over Tony Abbott. You tell me that I hate certain people and things and I know within myself that you are dead wrong. I can't find anything here which could be construed as hatred, but you claim to see it plainly. You are wrong. Simple as that. I long ago learnt the lesson that ascribing simple motives to complex people is problematic. Please think about it, and think about what sort of similar flaws you are putting into our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If you drop the political commentary altogether, I promise to not try to guess your motives for your political comments. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Propose New Section on Gillard's Professional and Personal Involvement with Wilson

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-skeletons-are-rattling/story-e6frfifx-1226407042965 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/cops-wanted-julia-gillards-ex-bruce-wilson-charged/story-fn6tcs23-1226442634336 http://www.news.com.au/national/julia-gillards-ex-boyfriend-bruce-wilson-faced-police-investigation/story-fndo4eg9-1226442710409 Gillard's involvement in this scandal is certainly note-worthy, and as it has been started to be extensively covered in the news media of late, MUST be included in any encyclopedic account of Julia GillardDickmojo (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done, but carefully. Perhaps we should start by stating a list of open questions on this matter that the PM has refused to answer. Freebird15 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate choice of sources. All three are News Ltd/Murdoch. Two of them require me to sign up to read them. I have no intention of giving my personal details to Rupert. The third says nothing concrete. If you really want to discuss this matter constructively here, you will need to find some more public, freely available sources. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The first "source" is an Andrew Bolt column, hardly an impartial observer [1]. --Canley (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We use commercial sources such as books or magazines all the time. Just because an editor has not bought a copy of a book does not make that book invisible and out of reach to Wikipedia. Besides, there are legitimate ways of getting around paywalls. --Pete (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the paywalls don't necessarily mean we can't use the sources. Bolt, though, is not an appropriate source, and some non-Murdoch stuff would be nice. Either way, I'm not convinced of the relevance of this - it seems pretty tabloidy, and probably not appropriate for Gillard's entry. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest she was involved. Frickeg (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Y'all missed my point about the sources. My point was that it was impossible for ME (and perhaps others) to discuss this matter HERE, because of the nature of the listed sources. I hadn't even noticed that one of them was Bolt. That seals it. No way! HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very old story - I'm surprised to see it surface again. The media pretty much dropped it some time ago, as there was no evidence that Gillard had done anything improper. From our perspective, the only thing we could say is that she had poor chice in boyfriends at some point in the past, but until there is something concrete that links Gillard to any wrongdoing there isn't any real cause to add it here. - Bilby (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I said as much earlier, but lost it in an edit conflict and didn't catch it. Without something really solid, we can't use it. Jula says she had no involvement and unless something comes up showing she did, we can't use it. Poor choice in boyfriends, maybe, but is that notable? No. --Pete (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all - glad to see some discussion going on this. I disagree that Andrew Bolt can't be used as a source where he is stating facts: Not because I think he's charming but because his newspaper would pay lawyers to check his every word to ensure that they don't get sued. Where he or anyone else just offers opinion, I agree that that would not belong in someone's biography.

For those who think this is old news or a beat up, here is some background information: http://pickeringpost.com While the content of Pickering's newspaper may or may not qualify as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes, it does suggest areas for further enquiry.

What can we say for certain? For starters I suggest: 1. Julia Gillard says she was "young and naive" when we know she was well into her 30s and a partner in a law firm. 2. Julia Gillard lets it known that she left her job in the firm to pursue a career in politics (working for John Brumby) - but there was a 6 month gap in between where she did not have a job. She doesn't mention it and doesn't explain it. 3. Gillard along with everyone else agrees that a large amount of money was stolen, but she has not called for AWU to release the documents that would provide police with evidence to charge the crooks. 4. Gillard maintains that she's dealt with all this in the past but I defy anyone to find transcripts of an interview in which she was confronted with detailed questions.

Freebird15 (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Including ancient, slanderous and never-substantiated rumors about Gillard would violate the core policies WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If you want to publish something like this on your own blog/website, go off and do so (but I'd suggest that you engage the services of a good defamation lawyer first), but it's not going to be permitted here for the reasons explained by other editors above. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, perhaps you regard the events of 17 years ago as ancient but you might acknowledge that many older people do not share this view. Of course slanderous allegations should not be published anywhere: Could you be specific in what claims I have made that cannot be verified? Freebird15 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Nick-D on this. We can't include negative poorly sourced material, and we are not going to speculate on what Gillard might have done in a missing six months. Or anybody, really. --Pete (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, well let's start small: Does anyone have a problem with the biography stating that Gillard was a partner at Slater and Gordon's, and that she started working for John Brumby six months after she finished up there? Freebird15 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a six month period in my history that I never mention on my professional resume. Want to speculate on what evil deeds I did in that period? No? Is that because I'm not Prime Minister? Stop wasting your time and ours, and drop it now. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48: Did you say "drop it now?" I'm asking for undisputed facts to be inserted an autobiography but you and the others seem to be trying to shut down the conversation. I have never encountered this level of bias in an internet forum. How very interesting. Freebird15 (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with properly sourced and relevant facts inserted into a BLP. Gillard's early career is as relevant to her later one as any other PM. Ben Chifley's train-drivin' days, for example. But this isn't a personal vote or consensus thing. It's a matter of wiki policy. Freebird, please don't attack other editors for merely playing by the rules. --Pete (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding, I don't mean to attack anyone. I would like to withdraw everything I've said and start again with a much simpler proposal (see following). Freebird15 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that I came to this article looking for some reliable information about this affair. It's now news. Surely something should be in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.107.139 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Gillard's Abortion Stance

as noted earlier it is self evident that Gillard has no children but is reported that she was pregnant to Bruce Wilson (engaged at the time). Her political stance on abortion has been (as noted on the current wiki page) she thinks "poor women wouldn't be able to make such a commitment" - at the time of her pregnancy she was a senior partner in a law firm and pregnant; obviously not poor. This is factual and not opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.255.5 (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that this IP address is allocated to TREASURY-WA-AU. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But it's "factual and not opinion". It's on the interwebs, so we must include it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When did Gillard start working for John Brumby?

Like my fellow editors I am keen that the Wikipedia article is as accurate as possible.

Are we all agreed that Gillard was appointed to her job with John Brumby in May 1996?

I have found many references to this date and none to any other.

I would like to amend the article accordingly. Freebird15 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that, as long as you stick to neutral sources, and there do seem to be several (regarding the use of Bolt, et al, discussed above—I don't think a blanket ban on referencing factual material from opinion columnists is necessary, but in this case Bolt, Smith, Milne and Pickering have become part of the story so citing their assertions as references would be inappropriate I think). There is a biography on the website of the Commonwealth Secretariat which gives the date Gillard started as Brumby's Chief-of-Staff as specifically as "May 1996", for example [2]. There is a conflicting reference that I found, in the Parliamentary Handbook: Gillard's biography says: Chief of Staff to the Victorian Leader of the Opposition, J Brumby, MLA, 1995-98. This date has been in the Handbook for at least ten years. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There's something called an "Official Biography" on the ALP's website. It's written in the first person, as if by Julia herself. It tells us "From 1996 to 1998, I served as Chief-of-Staff to the then Opposition Leader of the State of Victoria, John Brumby." No month is given. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those references, I have also found conflicting reports of when she started. Perhaps someone could inform us what is the official Wikipedia way of dealing with conflicting reports from apparently reliable sources? I guess I am inclined to trust the May 96 date because Rob Hulls was supposed to have occupied the job until at least March 1996. How do we deal with the 1995 date from the Parliamentary Handbook? Freebird15 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Three excellent sources, one in conflict with the others. I'd go with the majority here, especially the one that gives an exact date. My guess is that she began working in Brumby's office in 1995 and took over as CoS in May 96, but that's only surmise. --Pete (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"My guess is that she began working in Brumby's office in 1995 and took over as CoS in May 96"~ Pure Speculation! There is no hard evidence to indicate that is the case. A more impartial reading of the evidence is to conclude that someone is lying. Hrmmm, who has a well-documented penchant for telling lies?? So much so that her First Name often has an "R" cheekily added to the end of it to denote what the public's perception of her honesty is??? Let me see.... Dickmojo (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that totally objective perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

s

I detect sarcasm, HiLo48... Are you trying to imply that it ISN'T objective to conclude in this case that the most likely cause of the discrepancy is that someone has lied? Or are you implying that it isn't objective to leap to a conclusion as to who the liar may be? Dickmojo (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusion is irrelevant, since we don't do speculation here. I was simply commenting on your obviously non-neutral perspective. Once you have chosen to make such a position public, your credibility as contributor here is weakened. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That would likely include all of us, as we are forced to make decisions and opinions on political statements merely by editing these articles. Probably best to keep the discussion on the article rather than the editor. Given the front page story in today's Australian, we need to keep an eye on the circumstances of Gillard's employment and its termination. [3] --Pete (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be even better to avoid posts accusing any politician of having "a well-documented penchant for telling lies". Such a post shows a blatant non-neutral POV and is not going to enhance discussion. As for your link to The Australian, the two sentences I can read without giving my personal details to Rupert show a typical Murdoch anti-Gillard slant. No facts are visible. Since it's no longer an open source, you'll need to stop using The Australian as a basis for open discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a subscriber and I could read the whole thing. You might need to tweak your setup. As previously pointed out, the fact that reference books cost money doesn't prevent us from using them as sources. Go along to your local library if you want to read today's paper, whatever. Gillard's involvement is not non-trivial. I haven't seen anything but speculation as to whether she was involved in any wrong-doing (I personally don't think she was) but still something was going on that wasn't above-board and we should keep our eyes open. Not close them. As for accusing politicians of telling lies, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Please. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How the hell can I have a conversation with you when you largely ignore or misinterpret what I write? (It really makes me wonder about how you form your opinions on anything.) The fact that you can read the article doesn't mean I can. I hope you're not suggesting that I'm lying! In addition, I made no comment on using the Australian as a source. Of course that can be acceptable. My point was that it's obviously not easily available to all editors, so there's no point trying to use it as a basis for discussion here right now. Please read more carefully in future. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you follow your own advice. I suggested that you tweak your setup or read the paper in the public library. Or, heaven forbid, go out and buy a copy. If you don't want to read the article, that's fine - we'll talk about it amongst ourselves and may or may not use it as a source. I don't think we need to say anything, just yet, but I think we should keep our eyes open. Other opinions on the material seem to differ. Please respect that different editors may have different opinions and we work on consensus. --Pete (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course we have different fucking opinions. The trouble is, your opinion of Gillard is obvious, and is influencing everything you do here. And you don't actually know what mine is, no matter what you might think. (Don't bother trying to guess.) Can you see the difference? Please stop using this place as a soapbox. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Different opinions on the article's subject don't matter - we do things politely and with consensus, and it works out just fine. Did you take in what I wrote above? I sent you a link to a copy of the article, which looks like a straight cut and paste job. Any comments welcomed. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a guess is, by definition, speculation. Well spotted! Doesn't really matter - we have three good sources for the information, any one of which is fine to support a statement in the article. Not a hugely notable statement, however. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This link from today's Oz highlights key dates related to her employment with Slater and Gordon in chronological order: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-political-controversy-that-wont-go-away/story-fn59niix-1226452912534. Presumably the paper's lawyers went over it with a fine tooth comb. I am a Wikipedia newcomer so I don't have the right to edit this article, but maybe someone else can? Freebird15 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a good chance you are now "autoconfirmed", and can edit the article. Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

I'm not quite sure what is valuable in the article, though. In terms of a timeline it says that Gillard started work with Slater & Gordon in 1987, and that she was promoted in 1990. It also says that she left in October 1995, and started work with Brumby in mid-1996. Is this particularly valuable, though? We already cover most of that in the article. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rich for the head's up: you're right I've been auto-confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freebird15 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Australian Newspaper is the most prestigious and premier print news source in the entire country. Jimbo Wales himself is on record as saying that Mainstream Media Sources *and he specifically included Murdoch-owned MSM sources* are excellent sources for evidence on Wikipedia. Now, I find it the height of ridiculous-ness for someone who is apparently so biased against News Ltd and Rupert Murdoch that they just want to close their eyes and yell "LA LA LA" to any evidence emanating from these sources, to accuse ME of being NPOV! I mean, opposing News Ltd. is basically a caricature of typical far-left extremism in this day and age. That this scandal of Gillard's past is being exposed in the News Ltd. media makes it even MORE essential that it be included in Wikipedia, as News Ltd. is THE most important and credible MSM source in Australia. Dickmojo (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoopee! I'm a ridiculous, biased, typical far left extremist! Whoohoo! Silly post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What's silly is your bias against "the Murdoch press". The rules of Wikipedia state that they are acceptable sources. Not just acceptable, preferable. Dickmojo (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent on-the record statements regarding Gillard's departure from Slater and Gordon

Hi All,

First I must apologise for accidently deleting the following section when I inserted my section:

In 1987, Gillard joined the law firm Slater & Gordon at Werribee, Melbourne, working in industrial law. In 1990, at the age of 29, she was admitted as a partner.

(My text was to come after it).

Now Bilby - you reverted my edit and said the matter was being discussed in talk. Would you like to explain please? I've done my best to follow all the rules of Wikipedia - these are clearly items of interest to anyone who is interested in Julia Gillard's biography and they are well sourced. Could you explain your edit please? Freebird15 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we are going to include content stating that the current Prime Minister had been fired from a previous position due to the possibility of benefiting from stolen money, then we had better have consensus before we add it, and make sure that both sides are covered. You edit covered one side, and was made in spite of the ongoing and rather intense discussion above. Let's seek consensus on what to add prior to dropping it into the article. (Being bold is fine - but having been bold, we need to return to discussion). - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby - Could you put into words what this "other side" is? Freebird15 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Little things. Like Gillard denying any wrongdoing, or that she was asked to leave. Or providing receipts showing that she paid for everything.

Fundamentally, The Australian is reporting on claims made by a third party. At the moment, that's all they are - claims made by another person, that haven't been tested, and that have been consistently denied by Gillard. We can't then add them into the article as if they are factual statements. At any rate, seek consensus first. When consensus is to add it into the article, we'll be able to do so. - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The other side is one where you don't speculate. Was she really unemployed for the period you specified? You don't use the sort of language designed to implicate without real evidence, such as "she could not categorically rule out...". We write what we definitely DO know. We don't go beyond that. And in the current political climate, we need to be very careful about sourcing. Because of the obvious campaign against her government currently underway by the Murdoch press, getting material from other, non-Murdoch sources is critical. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry HiLo48, but this biased POV of your's against "the Murdoch press" is totally counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales himself states that Mainstream Media sources such as News Ltd. are excellent sources for wikipedia articles to use as sources. On the one hand, you say that we shouldn't "speculate", and then you go on to speculate that "the Murdoch press" is pursuing a "campaign against (the) government". No its not! That is pure speculation on your behalf. Now, as "the Murdoch press" currently includes 70% of the Mainstream print media in Australia, any topic which is pursued by them MUST be included in wikipedia as a matter of public interest. Mainstream media sources are THE most appropriate sources, HiLo48, and your campaign to exclude 70% of the best sources available to us because of your obvious political bias is unbecoming of a NPOV editor Dickmojo (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Expressions like "your obvious political bias" and "unbecoming of a NPOV editor" are personal attacks. I can deal with it, but you should not be doing it. While all of us and all media have their biases, that currently being displayed against Labor and the Greens by the Murdoch press is so bloody obvious and extreme that for you to deny its existence is very silly and unhelpful. As for my opinion on Gillard et al, you have no fucking idea. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby; we shouldn't be adding vauge gossip and unsubstantiated allegations to the article per WP:BLP. In regards to The Australian, I think that it's generally agreed among people with an interest in Australian politics that its greatly biased against the ALP and (to a greater extent), the Greens and its reportage needs to be treated with caution as a result. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what people with an interest in Australian politics think, the fact is that Mainstream Media sources are acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. Not just acceptable, preferable, because if a topic is garnering coverage in the MSM, yet not covered in Wikipedia, there is a coverage gap here that is not desirable. Now, the Australian is the most Mainstream print media source in Australia. There are NO grounds for ignoring it as a highly credible source, despite what you might or not not SPECULATE about its neutrality. (For the record, I personally think its editor at large Paul Kelly, and a number of its regular columnists like Peter van Oneselon, are HIGHLY biased towards Labor and against the Coalition, but that is balanced out by a few pro-Liberal columnists like Henry Ergas and Janet Albrechtson, so that overall, the Australian is probably the most balanced Media source in Australia, as opposed to Fairfax and the ABC whom have exclusively only leftists on their staff). I propose we restore Freebirds' edits, because this is a hot topic right now and needs to be covered in some way by wikipedia. If Gillard wants to come out and set the record straight, more the better. But the fact that she refuses to is not grounds for us to ignore the topic totally.Dickmojo (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything in The Australian's article we need to cover. I didn't see that she had been sacked or dismissed, for example, merely that's he had resigned. We can read between the lines all we want, but there's very little about Julia Gillard that's at all solid. Or notable.

I cannot see that The Australian is anti-ALP so much as supplying the same criticism of this government that it has aimed at any other government. One of the roles of the media, and one of the things that sells papers, is examining government misdeeds. Or those of any other party. Anybody here feels that Julia Gillard and her government is above criticism? --Pete (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

There you go again Dickmojo. Ignoring all that bullshit you wrote about The Australian, as soon as you use expressions like "come out and set the record straight" and "the fact that she refuses to" about Gillard you show that your mind is already made up. And that pretty much removes you from the list of helpfully objective editors here. Please take your prejudice elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 - I find your manner unnecessarily aggressive. I do not find Dickmojo's comments prejudiced. Freebird15 (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the meaning of prejudiced. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless implying that a fellow editor should take themselves elsewhere seems aggressive to me. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby: Re: Seek consensus first. Are you sure that this is the right way to go? That would imply that a person's reputation on Wikipedia will be driven by the consensus view of a half-dozen people who happen to be taking an interest at any particular time. Regarding your point about Gillard denying any wrongdoing: Where has she denied that she was sacked? Where does she deny that she was dating a client? Or any of the other things that I mentioned? I can't find this anywhere. A bland statement that "I didn't do anything wrong" is not a rebuttal. Freebird15 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you denied that you beat your wife? HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If I were a man who was married and the front page of the Australian reported that I was a wife-beater I would deny it and call a lawyer. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D: I agree that we shouldn't adding vague gossip and unsubstantiated allegations, but here is a well-known newspaper making very specific claims that would see them incur substantial penalties if they could not back those claims up in court. On the other hand, perhaps we could change what I wrote so that it didn't report it as fact but said that "A partner in the law firm (insert name) made a statement that ... and so far there have been no specific denials. Could we build a consensus around that? Freebird15 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The first bit could be OK, but why did you add the bit about no denials? That's pushing a particular line. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

OK - I see your point - I wouldn't mind if "no denails" was removed. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A general comment: Could we have some more links to external references showing verifiable alternative evidence on this matter? We all agree that Wikipedia is no place for speculation but we seem to have a shortage of evidence in support of Gillard. Freebird15 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's not our job to find evidence for AND against someone. We report what reliable sources tell us. And that has to be more than just The Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Australian is fine as a source. I just don't think there's anything in this particular article that we can use. Freebird, what specific statements are you basing your edits on? --Pete (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete, every one of my claims is taken directly from the sources quoted. I change a few words to provide context. I will find the exact quotes if you really need me to. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do that, please, and then consider whether you've uncovered anything concrete that we can include. At the moment I'm inclined to remove any repetition of your edit. --Pete (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete - I'll just do the first one because I've already spent a lot of time providing detailed and precise references in the article and I feel other editors should make some effort to read what I've provided or provide references of their own. OK, so here's the first one: I wrote

"In August or September 1995 her employer started an investigation into reports that her client/boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, had been misappropriating large sums of money from the firm's client, the Australian Workers' Union."

The corresponding section of the Australian reads:

"AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1995: Gillard's law partners at Slater & Gordon become concerned that her client is accused of misappropriating significant sums of money. The partners start a secret internal investigation. Gillard ends her relationship with Wilson."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-political-controversy-that-wont-go-away/story-fn59niix-1226452912534

Freebird15 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So we have a report of a report of a suspicion. Any charges laid? Any official report? And did Gillard know anything about this? There's nothing we can really hang a statement on, is there? And, I'm guessing here, but the fact that the relationship ended at this point I read as that she dropped him when she learned about his (possible) misdeeds. --Pete (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to step back a bit. In The Australian, as linked to above, it states that in 1995 "Gillard, who was an ALP Senate candidate, tells The Australian at the time: 'Whether or not Mr Wilson was a client of mine is irrelevant. Each and every allegation raised about me is absolutely untrue; there is not a shred of truth in any of it.'" So in regard to her denying the claims, her denials go back to 1995. The second article states:

"Ms Gillard has repeatedly and strenuously denied that she had any knowledge of what the association that she had set up was going to be used for. She has also denied receiving any benefit from the funds. She has repeatedly rejected claims made in parliament that renovations to her own house in Melbourne in the early-to-mid 1990s were part-funded by money allegedly siphoned off by Mr Wilson. "

So I think we can be reasonably certain that Gillard has not been failing to respond to the claims, and that she has consistently denied them over many years. I'm surprised that those statements were missed, given that they were prominent in the two sources being used.

More importantly, though, The Australian is being very careful in its wording. They are not saying these things happened. What they are saying is that Styant-Browne claimed that they happened in a two-page letter suppied to The Australian. For our purposes this is a serious distinction. We can't repeat as fact something that is simply an unsupported and untested allegation which is being denied by the subject, and we couldn't do that on any BLP.

The problem for me is not that it was reported in The Australian, or that The Australian can't be taken as a reliable source. Just that it is only a reliable source for the saying that Styant-Browne has described these events thus, rather than that these events happened. We need to wait and see if more substantial information surfaces before running with it, and we can't treat it as a factual claim. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby - Thanks for your quotes, where Gillard directly refutes claims made by my edit I think that should be noted and the reference included. Your suggestion that the Australian is merely quoting claims made by Styant-Browne I think is demonstrably false. The front page of the Australian shouts, "Gillard lost her job after law firm's secret investigation." It does not say, "Gillard accused of losing her job after... etc" The text of the article (which I've ref'd already) makes the same claim. Freebird15 (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is very clear that the claims are based on the testimony of Nick Styant-Browne, and it repeatedly highlights this. I'm not sure quite why you would see it differently. - Bilby (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

" We report what reliable sources tell us. And that has to be more than just The Australian"~ Rubbish HiLo48, "reliable sources" do NOT have to be "more than just The Australian", and any assertion that they do is far-left extremist anti-Murdoch hysteria. Regardless, there are further references to this scandal, indeed it has been referred to in Parliament itself by former attorney-General Robert McClelland: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc3691419-911e-4e11-b6bf-09c7da360bc2%2F0070;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc3691419-911e-4e11-b6bf-09c7da360bc2%2F0000%22 Dickmojo (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"So I think we can be reasonably certain that Gillard has not been failing to respond to the claims, and that she has consistently denied them over many years." Gillard has not denied that she was intimately and professionally involved with Union fraudster Bruce Wilson. She has admitted she was, has gone so far as to describe her self as being "young and naive" because of her association, and this association therefore, as a matter of public record, ought to be made note of in Wikipedia. Dickmojo (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Another non-News Ltd source about the scandal, this one from Macquarie Radio: http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=13864 Dickmojo (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that we could legitimately report that as a young woman, Ms Gillard was young and naïve, and made a poor relationship choicer. We could probably say this for a majority of the population. Whooptedoo! --Pete (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

More than that, Pete. We can legitimately report that Ms Gillard was <BLP violation redacted> Dickmojo (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. No, we can't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we can, they are the undisputed facts of the matter. And not only we can, we SHOULD, because now that this scandal has appeared on the front page of the Weekend Australian, to not report on it would be a dereliction of our duty as editors. The Australian is the only National Broadsheet newspaper in circulation in Australia. It is the most important and prestigious news publication in the nation. The Weekend Australian, further, is the most important and circulated edition of the Australian. The national significance of a front page story in the Weekend Australian can not be over estimated. Stop trying to bury this story to protect your darling and come to some consensus on how we may appropriately include this scandal in this wikipedia article, because included it MUST BE. Dickmojo (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

C'mon everybody - A major newspaper makes detailed and important allegations about the subject of this Wikipedia article, and we can't work together to use ANY of it? Freebird15 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Undisputed facts", "detailed and important allegations"? Seriously? Not one of these stands up to scrutiny: (a) Was the so-called "fraudster" concerned convicted or even charged with these allegations? (b) No one is seriously making any allegations of wrong-doing against Gillard—not even The Australian, who seem to be dancing around several rumours and linking several events together in a chronology which implies some kind of wrong-doing if you fill in the blanks (which is what seems to be happening here), but they seem to be very careful not to make any specific allegations. (c) Referring to the relationship as a "common law marriage" is a real stretch, and one I don't think you'll find in any reference. That Gillard owned her own house in Abbotsford seems to show that there was not any kind of long-term de facto domestic arrangement. (d) Did either McClelland or Gillard ever represent parts of the AWU in "court cases"? I don't think so—several news articles mention that McClelland and Gillard provided their respective clients with [written] "legal advice". Also, there is no conflict of interest: McClelland and his firm (Turner Freeman) represented two AWU officials (Ludwig and Cambridge) as individuals, not the union itself. And absolutely no evidence that McClelland's removal from cabinet was in any way related to this case. (e) Nowhere does it say that Gillard was "fired" from S&G, in fact the article in The Australian clearly says that she left due to what she saw as "shabby treatment" by the firm. That Wikipedia editors should leap to conclusions and draw tenuous inferences from a series of ancient, unsubstantiated rumours, when even the media outlet publishing them won't go there, is ridiculous. --Canley (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Important and detailed accusations are placed on the front page of a major Australian newspaper, but you won't read about it here. Now don't worry, don't fret, instead just check out these amazing revelations by those fearless editors on Wikipedia!

You get all the facts you need to know about the Prime Minister, including:

• The place her parents live.
• The time of day at which the previous Prime Minister announced he would be standing down.
• The date she moved into the the Prime Minister's house.
• Bill Shorten's opinion of Kevin Rudd.
• How some journalist rates her debating style.
• The fact that she was asked a question by Mark Latham.
• Who she cheers for when she watches football.

We, the editors of Wikipedia, have changed the world forever!

Hugs all round!

Freebird15 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Freebird, you have acutely captured the inanity of our fellow editors' position on this issue. Wikipedia articles are purposed to be biographical of notaries' lives. When aspects of an article-subject's biography are splashed across the front page of the National Newspaper, it would be remiss of us not to detail a summary of said information in this article. Now, I propose that the gravity of these allegations warrants a separate section all together, entitled "Bruce Wilson AWU Fraud Scandal" or something like that, in which we neutrally outline the known facts of the matter, <BLP violation redacted>. Such a summary is irrefutably factual, and can be sourced using the sources I and others have linked to on this page. Can we please come to an agreement now to effect such an edit to the article and move forward with full consensus? Dickmojo (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We seem to broadly agree Dickmojo, though I would be willing to tone down some of the claims just to get it past this brood of pecking chickens. Freebird15 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting article, but really has nothing much that we can use. I think we should keep an eye on the matter as it looks to be developing. If one of the major players cracks, we could see Gillard dumped right into the poo. What you can do right now, if you think you are being needlessly squelched here, is to take it to WP:BLPN, where a wider circle of editors will take a look at it. --Pete (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked it up, Pete, and found that WP:BLPN is generally used for stopping defamatory statements: not to help a bunch of kindergarten kids who are not able to work together to produce an article that is factual and relevant. Freebird15 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Getting a wider circle of editors to look at it would certainly help us reach consensus on how to include these aspects of Gillard's biography into the article. I've put in a request over there for someone to come and take a look at this page to help give us some input on reaching a consensus on how to include these facts into the article. Dickmojo (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's another article on the subject, from Bolt again. NB, just because a lot of lefties consider Andrew Bolt to be biased doesn't invalidate his writings as a source for WP articles. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_responds/ Dickmojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only person who's suspicious about this being so enthusiastically pushed by a single purpose account (Freebird15)? These claims have been hanging around for years, Gillard has denied them and nothing has ever come of it. They popped up briefly in the media last year and were rapidly withdrawn by The Australian and Herald Sun after Gillard threatened legal action (if I'm not mistaken, some of the claims in question are being repeated above, which is highly concerning). The Australian and Herald Sun seems to be giving them another push, and this hasn't been picked up by the wider media. There is no 'scandal', or anything which warrants including in the article per WP:BLP. Grotty rumours and dubious allegations are regularly pushed by the enemies of most senior politicians (which I won't repeat here for obvious reasons) and we rightly don't include them in their articles. The fact that right wing blogger Andrew Bolt is being offered as a reliable source on this matter says it all really: he's not a reliable source on anything. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes me suspicious is the culture of intimidation that is being propagated to shut down all discussion on this matter. Larry Pickering, a journalist who has been trying to pursue the issue, has been (quote) "pickeringpost.com has been consistently attacked via a DDoS for the past few days. We are now getting a "suspended" notice." ever since this report emerged: http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/blog-with-derryn-hinch/gillard-and-the-awu-scandal-larry-pickering-forecasts-the-pms-demise/20120814-246gn.html

Regarding Andrew Bolt, as a mainstream journalist in the Mainstream Media, he is a perfectly acceptable source of information for Wikipedia. Just because you assert that "he's not a reliable source on anything" does not make it so. I assert that he is a reliable source, and a dare you to prove otherwise. Dickmojo (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Further, Nick D, your claims that, because this scandal has been hinted at for years, but nothing (yet) has been taken up in earnest by the media, then its nothing at all, is wrong. One could have said the same thing about Craig Thomson's fraud scandal... up until this time last year, it was a background issue not taken up by the media at all except for one SMH article and a lone talk radio journalist. Indeed, the Gillard tried to shut down all discussion on that issue as well, just like she is trying to do with this scandal. Dickmojo (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the conspiracy theories. Bolt is a writer of opinion articles in newspapers and runs a highly opinionated blog, neither of which qualify as reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. First, The Australian is a perfectly acceptable source. Whatever biases that individuals ascribe to various news sources is irrelevant to whether they are acceptable as reliable sources. We need to just put that whole argument to one side because "the Murdoch press" is used extensively across the project to verify claims. Continuing to press objections to certain outlets only distracts from the real argument.

The relevance of this story to an article about Gillard is the true point. I've been reading this discussion from the beginning, but I've yet to see a single compelling argument for including what amount to innuendos. No one is actually alleging that Gillard did anything wrong, and certainly isn't presenting evidence. So what is the point of talking about when she went to work for one employer or how her employment ended with another? Presenting that without explaining why she left the firm serves only to imply she did something wrong. Aside from the fact that doing so would be ethically dubious, BLP tells us we cannot do that.

Finally, tossing about allegations of intimidation is completely unacceptable. If you really feel you are being intimidated, reported it. But as far as I can see not one thing that has been said could be interpreted as intimidating. If you think disagreeing with you is an intimidation tactic, then you should reconsider whether your personality is sufficiently suited for participating at Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We finally have another reliable source reporting independently on this matter. From The Age we have "SLATER and Gordon...yesterday revealed that an internal inquiry had found nothing against her over a scandal involving her former boyfriend, Bruce Wilson." There is no story. Let's drop this nonsense completely now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we are at the same stage as yesterday. The story in The Australian had nothing of substance, nor does this one in The Age. But we don't know what's going to come up in tomorrow's headlines. With Gillard, things have a way of blowing up suddenly. That Australia Day riot thing, for example. We stick with the way Wikipedia works on BLP, thank you. Actually, there is one interesting bit of information in the article, in that she is reported to have resigned to fight a Senate campaign. How come we didn't have this in our article? --Pete (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And there's some more of your personal opinion about Gillard. Please stop it. Your political commentary is unhelpful, and only encourages those obsessed newcomers above to take it further. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

With Wikipedia shedding editors by the trainload, we don't want to discourage volunteer workers. As ever, it's a matter of sticking to Wikipedia rules, unless you think that individual editors have leave to get around such fundamentals as BLP. With enough eyes on this article, we'll keep things as they should be. With Gillard - or anyone else - we can never rule out new material being presented for inclusion in WP. Often as part of a breaking story.

Actually, it says she took a leave of absence for the Senate election and that she resigned effective 3 May 1996 to work for Brumby. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So it does. Whatever, there's really nothing untoward about Gillard leaving the law firm and the supposed six months unemployed. I'll bet she was flat out doing political work for the ALP in that "unemployment". The fact that she was given the winnable third spot on the ticket shows how much she was valued at that time. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And again, your personal thoughts on Gillard add nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that earlier in this thread a new editor suggested there was something fishy about Gillard taking six months off work. I'm saying there wasn't. Because she was working on a Senate campaign. Are you disagreeing on this point? --Pete (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Unlike you, I won't speculate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a damned good thing no one asked you to, then. Pete isn't suggesting we put his speculation in the article; rather, he is pointing out that the information some thought meant Gillard just had to have done something wrong actually seems to point to something more innocuous. -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me respond to Nick-D's statement above that he is "suspicious about this being so enthusiastically pushed by a single purpose account" (mine).

First of all let me say I am not alone and give credit to Dickmojo for also trying to get this issue discussed.

Secondly let me explain that I have set up a Wikipedia account just for this purpose because in the past I felt that the anonymous editing-by-anyone on Wikipedia produces weak articles (see "hugs all round" above), but that nevertheless this issue was too important to ignore. Specifically I felt people like Michael Smith were brave and true Australians and their voices deserved to be better heard.

Of course the reason for my bringing it up has now paled into insignficance, all the major players are now reporting on this issue:

• The West Australian
• The Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• The Financial Review
• Editorial from The Financial Review

I could go on, but I'll leave you with a link to an ABC discussion show in which Barry Cassidy (a TV journalist with over 40 years experience) can't discuss this issue without multiple nervous stammers. Hilarious!

• Barry Cassidy on ABC Insiders

Freebird15 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the matter up. If there were any substance to the allegations, we could use the material in our article. As it turns out, Gillard doesn't seem to have anything much to explain beyond making a poor choice of lover, and haven't we all done that once or twice? For allegations like this, we can't state them as fact without something a lot stronger to base them on. This applies to every living subject of a Wikipedia article, in line with the WP:BLP rules, which have been in place for some years and have wide support amongst editors.

You have done exactly the right thing in bringing the matter here for discussion. --Pete (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another slant on the matter: SMH: Larry Pickering - the conman stalking Gillard. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link WWGB: Glad to see someone contributing! A large part of this article talks about Larry Pickering though I don't know if that's relevant. The article does talk about Gillard, but only to voice the opinion that the Prime Minister was guilty of a "dire failure" by not backing a report into union corruption with a statement that she would clean up the unions. Freebird15 (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You really are desperate, aren't you? There's NOTHING there!!!! (Well, apart from malicious behaviour from a corrupt con-man.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48: If you're saying there's nothing in the article offered by WWGB that can be used because it's all opinion: I agree with you, but didn't want to say it in those terms because it seems like a mean way to talk to WWGB whom I've just met; also I like the fact that he's actually putting stuff up not just making comments about other peoples' efforts. Regarding your last comment: are you using Wikipedia to make anonymous claims that a particular person is a con-man? Freebird15 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WTF? I think you and I must be on different planets. There is no connection between what you're saying and what WWGB and I have posted. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, I'm not familiar with all these internet acronyms (I'm getting on in life). What does WTF stand for? Freebird15 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What The Heck? (Pretty sure it's used just as much outside the Internet as on it.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can't keep discussion about the article, rather than attacking other editors and being disruptive, you'll find your conduct the focus of wider attention, HiLo. Is it too much to ask you to be polite, to assume good faith, to be an example of a model editor? Treat other editors with the respect you'd like directed at yourself. Please. --Pete (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Given what Freebird15 is posting, that's very difficult. He is posting absolute nonsense. Can you explain it? Or maybe explain to him what's wrong with it? I saw so much wrong I truly didn't know where to start. And did you see his allegation that I am "using Wikipedia to make anonymous claims that a particular person is a con-man"? Just laughable given the name WWGB gave to the link he posted. I DID laugh out loud. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Best not to bite the newbies or to use the poorest behaviour as an example for everyone else. Look at this discussion - it's gone on for far too long and been needlessly heated because good faith has not been assumed. I can understand the concerns raised about Gillard and her lover and her departure from the law firm, especially where they are being fanned up by some bloggers such as Bolt and Pickering, but when we look at the sources, we find nothing much. This is all pretty straightforward, and instead of calling each other names, we should be referring each other to the appropriate wikipolicy pages. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think Wikipedia has a policy on comprehension, and that seems to be the problem for Freebird15. And that's not intended as an attack. It's description of what I see as a significant problem. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not intended as an attack? What, because he is unable to comprehend it? Look, Freebird isn't a problem here. I think he raised concerns about Gillard, based on what he read in the papers, and he did so in good faith. Wikipedia can be very daunting for a newcomer, especially with all the jargon we throw around, and our job is to help new editors, not scare them off because we don't like their political opinions. On the subject of comprehension, you yourself admitted that you were unable to understand something I posted yesterday. That's not an attack on you, because what I wrote was a teeny bit opaque, but an observation that if you don't like the way you are treated by others, it might help to look at the way you treat them. I include myself in that, and I'm sorry you were discomforted by my remark, which I thought might raise a snort and chuckle. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't intended as an attack. We actually have a policy, Wikipedia:Competence is required, which highlights that editors can be defined as incompetent, especially on certain topics, where bias gets completely in the way of rational editing. This editor accused me of making "anonymous claims that a particular person is a con-man", when that was precisely what the author of the referenced article had written, and what WWGB had named his link as. He also seemed to think that the article supported his POV, when it did completely the opposite. Anyway, the whole situation seems to have killed the thread, and I'm happy to see it die. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, the reason I think you shouldn't accuse people of being con-men or anything else is because the target of your innuendo has no form of redress. WWGB, on the other hand, just offered a link to an article by Michael Pascoe, and because Michael Pascoe put his real name next to his allegations he allowed a right of reply. Wanna see the reply?. Freebird15 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Freebird - I don't know how to respond to what you're saying. Putting it "politely" is an interesting challenge. You are writing as if you see what happened above completely differently to the way I see it. That makes it impossible for me to have a rational discussion with you on the matter. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

Looking at this edit by HiLo, he says he is reverting unsourced material, but the law firm reference is sourced a few sentences earlier and the fact that she was a Senate candidate is already in Wikipedia, a simple list of candidates that is adequately sourced and uncontroversial. Given that HiLo already posted a link to this material, he must have known that it was factual and sourced. I wonder if he would like to explain his behaviour? --Pete (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. If that truly was a good faith edit, feel free to put it back. The problem is that there's so much bad faith commentary occurring on this Talk page, including by you, that I may have got just a bit too defensive. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wilson Affair

I have started a new article Wilson Affair. I would appreciate contributions from all editors. Please ensure all content is sourced. When we are finished there a summary can be added to this article with a Main Article link. --Surturz (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see the creation of that page in order to sidestep discussion here. As consensus was against including the content here, the creation of a fork to cover that material is not a good approach to the issue. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, I created the article independently. --Surturz (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it really need to be in a separate article? I've tagged it for merge here. Lone boatman (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be deleted as a BLP violation for claims against Wilson. Given that Freebird15 has removed the CSD tag, I'll have to look at how best to pursue this. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed in the talk page of the article mentioned. Freebird15 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The story has been covered by the Australian media in 2007 ("conman broke my heart"), 2011 (Oz retraction), and 2012 (current coverage). Given this coverage over a five year span (more if you include the 1995 Vic Parliament accusations), I think it deserves its own article. Only a short summary belongs in this BLP. --Surturz (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a legitimate and notable article. The affair has had a long history and continues to attract public comment. More interesting revelations today, including a report that Gillard described what was supposed to be a union workplace training organization as an "election slush fund".[4] Not sure about the name, but as there are several people involved, maybe it could be renamed? --Pete (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Pete that it should be renamed. It is generally referred to in the media as the AWU scandal which I think is a better name. Freebird15 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this counts as a revelation, given that, as always, it comes down to someone's unsupported allegations. I suspect the issue will die out in a couple more days, as it has in the past. It is pretty much a non-issue in regard to Gillard, and without proof that there was fraud, it is unlikely to ever turn into more. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If Gillard knew at the time the thing was a union slush fund, as has been reported today, then this thing has got legs. Because of Gillard's fragile position, it will be exploited and become the focus of more public interest. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But then, it has to be shown that she knew, and the it needs to have an impact. So far neither has occurred. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We have one of the law firm's partners quoting her in an interview which was recorded and transcribed. [5]. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that his account has been contradicted by another partner and the firm itself on core issues, it comes down to nothing more than an allegation he's making. That's the problem. Everything comes down to allegations of possible wrongdoing. I'd like to see where this sits in a few days. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any specific refutation of this allegation? I haven't seen anything apart from general statements. --Pete (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. But as Gillard isn't responding to the allegations, that doesn't mean as much as it might. - Bilby (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Andrew Wilkie is calling for the PM to give a statement to Parliament, so maybe she will clear the thing up. At the moment I'm not seeing any direct refutations of the allegations, only non-specific statements. Bruce Wilson seems to be willing to sell his story, so there might be more revelations from that direction. We should keep our eyes open, but so far I don't see a real lot to worry this article about. A bit of grumbling from her employers. BFD. --Pete (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A person accused of something by her enemies has no obligation, moral, legal or otherwise to attempt to refute the allegations. The absence of a refutation proves absolutely nothing. Stop drawing conclusions. That's WP:SYNTHESIS HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

...first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. I say again that there is nothing that should go in our article. Yet. This is a story that is developing, and we should keep our eyes open. HiLo, if you paused to take in what other editors say again and again, there would be less disruption. --Pete (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I take an lot of notice of what you say, because I regard you as a dangerous, loose cannon on Wikipedia. You provide an awful lot of commentary and speculation on Gillard. Almost all of it its out of place here. It's very rare for other people to do it. Maybe you would do better by sticking entirely to what quality sources say, and that excludes speculative, politically motivated pieces from the Murdoch press. HiLo48 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop beating about the bush. It's completely obvious to anyone with any brains at all that the ONLY reason that article has been created is to assist ALP and Gillard haters towards their goal of getting rid of the Gillard government. This is meant to be a worthy, quality encyclopaedia. I have no respect whatsoever left for people using this project to push political goals in such a blatant way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not hate Gillard - I applaude her for taking a leadership role and wish others would do more than sit back and criticise. I side with her on some issues (her recent comments about electricity generation). I do not hate anyone - though I occasionally despair at people who use the anonymity of the internet to insult people who disagree with them.Freebird15 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it this way at all, HiLo. That's not why we report on political scandals and controversies. We do it to inform our readers, and to give a NPOV summary and access to sources. Wikipedia's policies work well to protect any subjects from malicious slander. Have more faith, please. Besides, the purpose of the union movement is to help workers, not to line the pockets of predators. The more light we can shed on wrongdoing, the better for all. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If this story was ONLY about a trade union, and did not ALLEGEDLY involve the PM, this article would not exist. So don't bullshit me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)