Talk:AWU affair

Forgot this ref: [1] --Surturz (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it is sourced. (your reason here) --Surturz (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources do not support the claims about Bruce Wilson. This is a serious BLP violation, as it amounts to libel. - Bilby (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that you have read the references fully in so short a time to assert that. I believe the references do support all claims in the article. You are of course encouraged to edit the article to improve it. --Surturz (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm up to date on the topic. Wilson has only ever been accused - the police did not pursue the case after their initial investigation, and did not charge him. The article cannot make stronger claims about him, and those claims are not supported by the sources. - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh they certainly are supported:

As a solicitor acting on instructions, she set up an association later used by her lover to defraud the Australian Workers Union (AWU).

[2]

However, police and the AWU found that the promised safety measures did not occur and the cash was siphoned off for the use of Mr Wilson

[3]

etc. etc. --Surturz (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Fundamentally, Wilson was never charged with embezzlement or fraudulently siphoning off funds, and the investigation was dropped. To present these allegations as facts is against the BLP policy. As far as we know, Wilson is not guilty of any crimes, irrespective of what some people may believe or believed at the time. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Bilby that this needs to be reworded (eg. say Wilson is accused of fraud), but not that the article should be dropped altogether. Freebird15 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bilby: You say the investigation was dropped: Shall we talk about why it was dropped and add that to the article? Freebird15 (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The claims will remain in the article's history, and there is no non-infringing version to revert to. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well - let's make one: then there will be. Freebird15 (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is, with the claims in the history, the best path is to delete and start again. At which point it will probably end up at AfD as a needless fork. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I see your point but I don't like to destroy Surturz's hard work. I have made adjustments so that nothing is presented as fact (I hope you don't mind Surturz - I'm just trying to be careful) - there may be more to do. Previous revisions can be deleted permanently - I've seen it done so that's no problem. And if this article gets honed to perfection and then inserted into the main Gillard article - everyone will be happy! Freebird15 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've raised it at BLP/N. Given that consensus has been strongly opposed to including this in Julia Gillard's biography, I don't imagine that it will be merged as it stands anytime soon. - Bilby (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) If you really want to pepper the article with the word "allegedly", I won't stop you if it means you'll stop trying to get the article deleted. I'm sure an admin will happily WP:REVDEL once you've done so (if there really is a BLP problem). -Surturz (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sourced, eh? The Daily Tele source tells me that Gillard "confirmed she was a union lawyer when she fell for the conman." Does anyone apart from the ALP and Gillard haters here really think that's a good source? Wilson has been convicted of nothing. He wasn't even charged! I don't believe Gillard would have used the term "conman". So what's that source telling me apart from the fact that the Tele is a cheap tabloid rag? And I still cannot see the material from The Australian without giving Rupert my personal details. Others here who I regard as objective will have to confirm that it supports this article, and that rules out several pushing this content. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The Australian has obtained a copy of the interview transcript in which she directly refers to the organisation as a slush fund, which is at odds with the stated purpose. She states that she did not open a file on the matter, that she should have done so, that she didn't do it because she didn't charge for her services, as with many other union matters. They have also obtained a statement from Peter Gordon, the then senior partner of the law firm, in which he said that "the partnership was extremely unhappy with Ms Gillard considering that proper vigilance had not been observed, and that (her) duties of utmost good faith to (her) partners especially as to timely disclosure had not been met. Ms Gillard elected to resign and we accepted her resignation without discussion".[4] Hilo, you may wish to close your eyes to news reports, but I urge other editors to google key phrases from the statement above to find a range of media reports on this matter. Or visit a public library to read the day's papers for free. --Pete (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to remain very careful about this. In regard to Gordon's statement, it should be noted that his actual statement did not say that. The quote you are using was from a draft statement that was leaked, and his actual statement was different and states "there was no explicit or indirect evidence that (Ms Gillard) was involved in any wrongdoing". - Bilby (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Gordon's approved statement is here. It is good that he makes clear his view that there was no evidence that Gillard was involved in any wrongdoing, but he is not specific about this. Maybe he means there was no evidence of wrongdoing in terms of financial benefit. He does make it clear that there was tension between Gillard and the other partners, again without going into detail. One thing is interestin: It is relevant to understand that these events occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Harris/Smith case, which had placed relations between the industrial department and the rest of the partners under great strain and damaged relationships.. Any idea of the circumstances of this "Harris/Smith" case? --Pete (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, I guess what he could mean is that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. Perhaps not qualifying the statement means that it wasn't meant to be qualified - conjecture as to what the qualification would be, had he made one, is a tad premature. In regard to Harris/Smith, my assumption would be that it was a case the firm had been engaged in at the time, but I wouldn't of thought it was relevant other than as a possible explanation for a high-stress period in the firm. - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

it's not precise wording, nor terribly detailed. I think one thing we can agree on is that we can't use it as a basis for speculation in the article. There was some tension between Gillard and the other partners, and the fund she set up wasn't what it was made out to be. That's as solid as it gets for Gillard so far. I don't think internal law firm procedures are really notable here. --Pete (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't use ANYTHING for speculation. We don't speculate at all here. Well, most of us don't. And why do you write "That's as solid as it gets for Gillard so far"? The article is nominally about Bruce Wilson. Are you telling us that the intention is for it really to be about Gillard's sins? Thought so. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Talking of speculation... As mentioned yesterday, this article is about more than Wilson, and could usefully be renamed. Gillard's involved and is the focus of a lot of media interest. Front page stories, pressure in Parliament from Andrew Wilkie, attacks from other Labor MPs. We can't ignore it. --Pete (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pete, I've renamed it according to the way it's referred to in the newspapers and radio - I hope you approve of the change! Freebird15 (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The article IS about getting Gillard. I wonder why the creator tried to conceal that? HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... all major media outlets in Australia are currently reporting on this matter. Freebird15 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not say "oh -- and if the allegations are in the papers, then anything goes in a BLP" ... sorry. Collect (talk) 16:28, 21 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 this 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) 21:49, 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. The Prime Minister is involved, whether you like it or not. The fund for which she did the legal work was set up for union training purposes, but described by her - at the time, according to one of the law firm partners - as an election slush fund. [5] --Pete (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see the Wikipedia policy that defines our job as shedding light on wrongdoing. That's a metaphor for "writing negative stuff about people and organisations I'd like to see gotten rid of". HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's common practice to highlight ironic or hypocritical behaviour. For example, a policeman who is caught stealing, a doctor who harms his patients, a teacher who cannot spell. Or a union education fund that is used for election expenses at best, and personal profit at worst. It is the exceptions that prove more notable, and perhaps more instructive than the general run. We would not have articles on Lee Harvey Oswald or Martin Bryant, for example, if they had been law-abiding citizens. As for your continued personal attacks, I reject them. I wish Julia Gillard all the best and hope that she enjoys a long career as a well-beloved Prime Minister. As, I hope, do you. --Pete (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut the crap Pete. That's both bullshit AND irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A notable person who's caught in wrongdoing can have the wrongdoing noted in an article about them: see WP:CRIMINAL. But Wilson apparently isn't notable enough for an article about him, and this WP:ONEEVENT is unlikely to change that. Since there's already an article about Gillard, the allegations concerning her involvement should be merged there, if consensus can be gained to do so. If not, then there's no point in keeping this article. Lone boatman (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A certain cartoonist

Those familiar with this story would know that a certain cartoonist has played a significant behind-the-scenes role in the affair. He is mentioned by name occasionally in WP:RS, so his involvement is WP:V. That said, I'm not sure it isn't generally harmful mentioning him, since his writings would certainly violate WP:BLP if aired here. Thoughts? --Surturz (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of his contributions, and they involve a good deal of dramatisation. Unless he begins to give soild sources I think we should steer clear. However, his contributions to the public debate are helping to raise the visibility of the affair and bring other sources forward. --Pete (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As a bankrupt, he can also say what he likes without fear of damages. WWGB (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims withdrawn by publisher as untrue

If a charge is contnetious, and the "reliable source" which published the claim has withdrawn the claim as untrue, it is improper for Wikipedia in any way to further the charge - listing it may give it credence to gullible readers, and that is a disservice to the readers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you read the section correctly. This is an important part of the story. We are not trying to assert the untrue allegations, we are covering the story of how the article got spiked. The spiking was covered by multiple sources (ABC, SMH, Crikey) and is WP:V and WP:N. --Surturz (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the sources provided, Collect. We are not alleging anything that is untrue. Excising important elements of the story has the effect of misleading and confusing readers seeking information. What are your specific concerns? --Pete (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect has now twice removed sourced content regarding Milne's 2011 article. He asserts that the article uses a withdrawn article as a source. It does not. The content in the article is sourced to other papers that discuss Milne's withdrawn article. Furthermore, the text does not in any way imply that Gillard did anything wrong - that section is really about Glen Milne, not Gillard. --Surturz (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I read the later articles ... the Australian issued a "correction" for the Milne "opinion piece." Opinion pieces are not utile for claims of fact in a BLP - they are usable at most for ascribing opinions to those holding them. Once the article was withdrawn, that does not mean that other papers mentioning the withdrawn article are now RS for claims of fact which the Australian states were not properly claims of fact. Cheers -- try arguing this at WP:BLP/N. Collect (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

So far a pointless discussion there. Collect's contention seems to be that even material sourced to journalists whose material was not withdrawn or retracted or apologised for - and Paul Kelly, Editor-in-Chief of The Australian is one such - falls under Glenn Milne's umbrella. --Pete (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the presentation of those claims makes it look like there may be some truth in them, when that was clearly not the case. Airing false claims in regard to BLP issues, even when it is said that they were retracted, is always a problem. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can handle this in a better fashion than Collect's substantial deletion, which includes unrelated material. As it stands, there is no BLP vio, but we need to make it quite clear that Gillard did not profit personally and knowingly. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that there is more of an issue than that. Fundamentally, we're saying that she lived in the house, and as far as I'm aware this is both irrelevant to the case and was resoundingly dropped by the media. We're then qualifying that claim, but there are a couple of claims in the article like this, which the presentation makes them appear to be true, and we then try to rescind it later. This is an uncomfortable approach - especially given that we never actually say that the statement was untrue.

The biggest problem with this article is that there are so many allegations floating around which we're reporting, in spite of being contradicted later, giving the allegations oxygen that they may not deserve. The claims that she resigned as a result of the investigation, for example, are clearly denied by people in a better position to comment, but we maintain the original claim. In time it may well emerge that a lot of these claims were false, so the rush to get them in here is problematic. - Bilby (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are specific denials from good sources, then we can either drop the original claims or present both sides. I have no problem with this. --Pete (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Gillard press conference

I find it depressing but very revealing that none of those attempting to throw mud at Gillard through this article seem to have noticed today's press conference.

Some of the occasionally more balanced such as Pete/Skyring have been seeking a refuation from her, although why anyone should have to refute such nonsense and political dirt I'm not sure. Anyway, here it is.

From The Age's coverage....

Prime Minister Minister Julia Gillard says she has been the the subject of a very sexist smear campaign" waged by means of false claims about her conduct as a lawyer 17 years ago.

Ms Gillard today dismissed as ‘‘false and highly defamatory’’ the claims about her role in the establishment a fund-raising entity for the Australian Workers’ Union, then headed in Victoria by her partner at the time, Bruce Wilson.

She said she had always acted ethically and it was routine to provide free advice to trade unions and their officials at her then firm Slater & Gordon, but in hindsight she might have done some things differently.

Ms Gillard told reporters: ‘‘For many months now I have been the subject of a very sexist smear campaign.’’

Not sure how much of that should end up in the article (which only exists as a political tool anyway), but for the PM to spend 75 minutes with the media on this is significant. HiLo48 (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Today's press conference happened during the course of the working day: perhaps we weren't in a position to "notice it". Having just sat through online it I would say there were several brand new points that Gillard made in her defence:

• Yes, she helped set up the dodgy AWU association but didn't know of Wilson's plans for it, didn't submit its application to authorities or have anything to do with its running.
• She had been accused of knowing that the association was for one purpose (getting Wilson re-elected) but wrote in the application that it had another purpose (improving worker safety). These, she said, are actually the same reason since Wilson was building his re-election campaign around improving worker safety.
• By helping Wilson she was merely a solicitor following a client's instruction: to expect her to have asked for confirmation from the AWU leadership is, in her words, to "misunderstand the role of solicitors".
• Doing the work for Wilson without telling anyone at the firm was not significant since lawyers often gave little bits of free advice and service to their clients (to keep them on side).
• Legal firms all used tape-recorders at the time, it was not significant that her interview with partners was tape recorded.
• The AWU was not the only issue causing tension at the firm at the time she left, and it is wrong for people to assume that her departure must arise from matters concerning the AWU.

Of course there was also the irrelevant mud-slinging that HiLo has alluded to, but I think I have covered the substantial new points that Gillard made today. I reckon I should go to work for the Labor Party. :) Freebird15 (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that Gillard has effectively denied every malicious allegation related to her and the topic of this article, which already clarifies that there is nothing concrete whatsoever in any of the allegations involving her. So, we have an article which, for WP:BLP reasons, should probably not even mention Gillard. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Her press conference was notable for the staunch denials of points that were not contested, at least not by Wikipedia, failures to refute the points noted here, and irrelevant attacks on the Opposition, who had nothing to do with events in 1995. We learnt nothing new from her today. --Pete (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Your naivety astounds me. Do you seriously believe that nobody in the opposition has anything to do with this story being dug up and pushed so hard in recent months? And I really don't think it's Wikipedia's job to prepare points for the PM to refute. Let's just report accurately on what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)