Talk:Daniel Andrews

For the record

A paragraph was removed: Andrews is a strong supporter of, has provided significant funding for, a number of controversial, gender-related programs including the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program,[10] and gender dysphoria services at both the Royal Children's Hospital[11][12] and the Monash Medical Centre.[13] - with the justification, "wild POV". While the underlying issues are contentious, the RS sourced, paragraph does articulate Andrew's POV. B20097 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a view of Andrews' stances on LGBT issues as articulated by Lyle Shelton and the ACL. It's a ludicrously biased description. I have zero problem with those going in through neutral language. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

"I have zero problem with those going in through neutral language" & "if you see a problem, the best approach is to simply fix it yourself." WP:TMM Chapter 8 > I will put the paragraph back and you might do that. Thanks B20097 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope! There was nothing salvageable from that text - it could have been cut from an ACL press release. The entire framing of it is problematic (tying together Safe Schools and youth health care as "controversial gender-related programs" is an absolute ACLism). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Bravo for including references, but they do not seem to mention that the RCH/MMC programs are "controversial", or that the funding of any of the programs is "significant". Additionally, it sounds like Andrews is funding them personally. The inclusion of this passage at all seems a bit undue to me – if it has any effect on Andrews' political career, premiership or government (other than the ACL getting their knickers in a twist about it), maybe, otherwise it seems like a case of "So what?" to me. The article certainly needs expansion, but we need to be careful to distinguish about what goes in the Andrews article and what is done by his government. Compared to the CFA dispute for example, this is a pretty trivial "issue". --Canley (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted

Page was vandalised on 1 September at 06:35 by an anonymous user. Vandalism has been reverted at 07:02 - please feel free to check that reverted version is free from vandalism. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit: this appears to be repeat vandalism, so I will investigate what measures need to be taken. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Low resolution portrait

The current portrait as of 11 January 2018 is wholly inadequate and should be replaced with something that has higher resolution and at leas a smiling or neutral facial expression. Puuugu (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo updated with campaign photo from 2018 state election Amyfishgerald (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Puuugu: please find a free image to replace the current one if you believe it is inadequate. @Amyfishgerald: the image you have uploaded is copyrighted and because free images of the subject exist, it unfortunately doesn't meet fair use as you've claimed. Hence, the status-quo image has been retained. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• @MelbourneStar: Is this one better? https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/members/current/AndrewsDanielMichael_37.jpg

Rorts For Votes

I believe my edits are completely justified, anyone who wants to hide this information has an agenda, the Rorts For Votes affair is called this throughout the media and Victorian public. (Ralph11 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

That is a completely unfounded personal attack. It is not called such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe Wikipedia should be using the term "Rorts for Votes" as if it IS the formal name of something. It would be difficult for you to prove that it "is called this throughout the media and Victorian public". It may be valid to write that it has been described as such by Person X or Journal Y. But that's not what you have been doing. The other problem you have now is that you have blatantly breached our 3RR rule. That makes any reverting by you in that area in the next 24 hours unacceptable. Please wait. Let others comment here. Make further constructive comments of your own. (But not about other editors. That's never going to help.) Overall, be patient. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Very feeble attempt, blatant election propaganda. The only thing of substance here was that the investigation was reopened. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Daniel andrews.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

Please added (Use Australian English) to the top of article because strong national ties to Australia, for example:

• (Use Australian English|date= July 2020)

Thanks 110.137.184.3 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

"With the retirement of Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman in January 2020, Andrews became the longest-serving incumbent state premier."

Can you change this to:

"Since the retirement of Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman in January 2020, Andrews has been the longest-serving incumbent state premier."

The first one's all right, but I think a "since" would sound a little more normal. "Since" will become out of date once he leaves his current position, but the "with" statement would become irrelevant at that time (20 years from now, who will care that he was the longest-serving incumbent state premier at some point), so time-sensitivity and currency are basically the same whether or not you accept my request. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:A86B:4D2C:8205:FF01 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced negative and irrelevant content in a BLP

The final paragraph of the subsection titled 2018 election and second term is entirely negative content, and is exclusively sourced to The Australian, an outlet known for its strong antagonism to the Labor Party. All of that sourcing is behind a paywall. As someone who won't give any money to Rupert Murdoch, I cannot verify whether it's true or not or even whether the content accurately reflects the sources. It really does look like an attempt by Andrews' political opponents to discredit him. Furthermore, the content isn't actually about Andrews, so I question whether it really belongs in an article about him. I believe that without another source supporting it, and without some indication that Andrews is directly responsible for all that paragraph implies, it doesn't belong in a biography of a living person. HiLo48 (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that the information currently in the article does appear in the Australian. I had a look at it and revised the text as I thought the previous version was tendentious in its use of the term "front organisation", "studied" (the staff member attended one course) and "disinformation" related to COVID-19. The text was previously in the "China" section (under Andrews' first term). I expanded the Belt and Road information and moved the part related to Andrews' second term into the relevant section after revising. My reasoning in making the amendments was that, if we were going to include this information, it should be close to what the source said and not include any editorial embellishments. Given the nature of the source, it also needs to be attributed. I think the Belt and Road information should remain but I would not object to the removal of the paragraph to which you refer. Burrobert (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the information is available in other sources. We pursue a NPOV policy here, and just because one doesn't like something that is well sourced doesn't mean we have to remove it. --Pete (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the article you linked to doesn’t mention any of the points from the paragraph being discussed. It does refer to one of the people mentioned in that paragraph but not to the specific points that the ‘’Murdoch Australian’’ published. There is a lot of trivia and innuendo around this topic which some editors may not consider worthy of an encyclopaedia. Burrobert (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the sourcing, but I would remove it on the grounds that the connection with Andrews is tenuous and the controversy is minor and inconsequential. Compare with things like the Somyurek affair and the Covid second wave that are significant and/or have had actual political consequences, and should therefore be included (they aren't at present). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes the ‘’Murdoch Australian’’ is not a good source but we can always attribute its reporting if it ever discusses anything of significance. The challenges of the COVID-19 second wave deserve mention. Adem Somyurek's behaviour may deserve a brief mention for its affect on the government but the details of the behaviour would be better placed on Somyurek's and the Victorian ALP pages. Burrobert (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My concern about the use of The Australian is twofold. We all know it tends to favour the side of politics not inhabited by Daniel Andrews, and every single source for that paragraph is from that journal. If additional sourcing could be provided from a different, more objective source on these matters, it would be a big improvement. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

"if you don't have the competence..." Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Getting back on topic, have you read the current discussion on WP:RSN? The Australian is unanimously agreed to be a reliable source there. --Pete (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. And I have even explained it being behind a paywall distorts such discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that. Ingenious argument. But I'm only seeing one person buying it. By your own argument, you haven't even read the sources you are objecting to. Just between you and I, I'm not seeing your argument holding much water if you are saying that a source is unreliable, when it is generally agreed in current discussion to be reliable on Wikipedia's own discussion board for discussing reliablity, and you haven't even read it. You want to pick your battles, and I'm not seeing that as a good one to dig in and fight till the last bullet. --Pete (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"By your own argument, you haven't even read the sources you are objecting to." I work in a school. It has a library with subscriptions to a lot of newspapers. I DO read the sources I object to. But even then, that was never my sole argument. I had at least three, that had a cumulative impact. I note that you specialise in trying to refute one at a time, somehow hoping that refutes the impact of all of them. It doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. And you have read all of these articles, because you read The Australian through gritted teeth as part of your painful duty to Wikipedia. Fair enough. You're a stronger man than I am. Nevertheless. You remain a lone voice at WP:RSN, your argument a lonely and mournful cry against a stream of editors all calling out "Reliable!". My take on Wikipolicy is that this makes The Australian a reliable source for BLP purposes, albeit with the caveat that we may drop opinion pieces into the dustbin, or better yet, beat them to death with a righteous fervour.

Your other argument - I'm not seeing a third, but with advancing years my intellect becomes frail and my memory dim and my spelling increasingly ramdon; perhaps you may assist me, if you would be so very kind - is that content that relates to Daniel Andrews in an official capacity via his government, his office, his electorate, and so on, is not relevant in a purely personal article, which apparently seems to have become full of such dross over the years. Again, I'm not seeing this as a particularly good line to push. If we had a Government of Daniel Andrews article, then we could move anything not directly related to the man in his birthday suit at home by himself there. And the same content about his government and China would be as relevant there as it currently is here. --Pete (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

On that particular point, I note the sudden appearance of User:DStrama a user with some very odd characteristics, who suddenly appears at a moment of crisis to delete the exact same material you want deleted. Perhaps this user, who has never said a word on any talk page ever over two years, may be persuaded to appear here. Always good to have new editors joining the community. --Pete (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

So why didn't you ping DStrama in order to achieve that goal? Or do you prefer just casting aspersions. I will fire off a ping now - DStrama HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree about Murdoch's paper but others have different opinions. More importantly the article could do with expansion in important areas such as Andrews' massive infrastructure projects which are transforming the state. It seems to have been passed over with one or two sentences. Another is the work Victoria is doing under the Belt and Road initiative. I expanded that part to cover the initial MoU but it needs more work on the effect the MoU has had on Victorian exports to China and Chinese investment in Victoria. Another area that needs coverage is Andrews' COVID-19 work. Burrobert (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This afternoon I removed the part of the article that I questioned here, because nobody has disagreed with my point that the content isn't actually about Andrews, and some commenters have agreed with me. This is a BLP, so it really doesn't belong. Pete/Skyring immediately reverted it, with an Edit summary of "Currently under discussion on the talk page. Please seek consensus for removwl there, thanks." I submit that I HAVE sought consensus for removal, and NOBODY has disagreed with me. The issue of sourcing has become a red herring. It doesn't make the content relevant. I need to say to unaware editors that Pete/Skyring has a habit of turning whenever I comment on Australian political matters, and without exception, disagreeing with me. Does anyone apart from Pete/Skyring object to that content being removed because this is the biography of Daniel Andrews, and the content in question is not about Daniel Andrews? HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I am the editor who added it by editing a previous version and moving it. I don’t object to it being removed and discussed here. My understanding of the policy is that, if an addition is objected to, it is removed while being discussed on the talkpage (the BRD process) so it probably should be removed while we discuss. Burrobert (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how BRD is supposed to work. We've been discussing this for a while now, so that phase is firmly in place. HiLo has voiced two objections, neither of which hold much water in my view:

1. The Australian isn't a reliable source. As it happens, this very question is being discussed right now at the Reliable Sources noticeboard and there is a clear view from a good many editors that The Australian is reliable, though their opinion pieces may be skewed to one side of politics. We're not sourcing this content on opinion columns, are we? So HiLo's objection is his personal opinion only and does not reflect consensus.

2. The story is of marginal relevance to Daniel Andrews. I beg to differ. Andrews is the Victorian Premier, and he has been very bold indeed with his links to China. The links between his office and Chinese organisations are pertinent. Do we have a source saying that they are unimportant? We do not. Once again this is HiLo inserting his original research into an article on Australian politics.

We need to observe wikipolicy, otherwise we go back to the bad old days where people just wrote whatever they wanted. I'm not going to speculate as to why HiLo wants to remove factual and reliably-sourced content from our article, but I think he's going to have to come up with better reasons than that he just doesn't like it. --Pete (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Pete, you are still the only editor trying to present any argument that this content that's simply not about Andrews should appear in the article. Have a look at every other paragraph there. All explicitly about Andrews. And this one isn't. You also misrepresented my concerns about the sourcing. As well as the obvious right wing bias of The Australian, which you will NEVER convince me doesn't exist, I also expressed concern about the fact that the ONLY sourcing for the paragraph is from that single journal. That paper is used five times, and no other source seems to be able to be provided. If you can find a relevant source elsewhere, you might have more of a case, but you would need to convince everyone else that it's about Andrews. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course The Australian has a right-wing slant. I gave up reading it about a decade ago for that reason. And The Guardian leans to the left. Both have excellent journalistic standards established over many decades, and both are excellent sources for BLP purposes, though we may take opinion pieces with a grain of salt. If you have any misgivings, please raise them at WP:RSN. This article is about Andrews, but it is also about his government, and the story is relevant here. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"This article is about Andrews, but it is also about his government..." The title says otherwise. It says it's just about the person called Daniel Andrews. And that content goes a long way away from the subject of Danial Andrews. You're also ignoring other key points I have made, such as the sourcing coming ONLY from The Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No. I chose not to respond to a red herring. I've just checked BLP again, and there is no requirement for multiple sources. NPOV doesn't mean we pick a middle path avoiding high and low. We include reliably-sourced content, assigning it prominence according to importance and coverage. This material is well down in the article, is not covered in the lede, and is two sentences long. Seems quite reasonaable. As for BLP articles about polticians excluding anything but personal information, well, that's a novel approach, and a rarity here. Perhaps you could look at Donald Trump and check out how much of his article concerns his administration. Likewise for Adolf Hitler. Daniel Andrews isn't quite in their league, but his article is full of material about his activity as head of government. --Pete (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph in question does not even tell us that it's about "his activity". HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

His government, his office, his staff; surely he is not divorced from everything around him? Is the story of the captain his alone, and we learn nothing of the ship of state under his command? His direct and immediate command, in this case. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have politely made my points. There is nothing new there to respond to, apart from reverting the change you made to the title I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

What a kerfuffle. To begin with, Burrobert is quite right in their assessment of WP:BRD - the disputed information is removed while discussed. The addition was made a week ago and was disputed less than 48 hours later. Burrobert was bold and added it, HiLo reverted, so we now discuss - with the material gone for now. This is unambiguous.

As for the material itself, I have to agree that it doesn't belong in the article in its current form. It is about someone connected with Andrews, but not Andrews himself, and is a minor controversy currently taking up around a fifth of the (very underdeveloped) section on the second term. It might belong in a very greatly expanded article (or even better in an Andrews Government article), but as it is now it is a colossal WP:UNDUE violation. To me the entire thing about the Australian is a red herring.

(As a PS, the Trump/Hitler comparison above is not at all apt. These are vastly more detailed articles, and in Trump's case even quite significant staff-related scandals are not brought up (and those that are either have Trump taking action or directly implicated). To pick a random scandal-tarred Trump lackey, Corey Lewandowski doesn't even rate a mention.) Frickeg (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I dunno. Trump has a great many spin-off articles, but Andrews only has two articles about his ministries, which are fairly spartan. We don't have a Government of Daniel Andrews article, and I think the China connection is fairly significant. On a positiver note, we could say more about his leadership in the current pandemic crisis. --Pete (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the State-level courting of China is significant, and if it doesn't go here, then where? As for The Australian being a red herring, I disagree. It's a red flag: if an editor claims that a source widely regarded as reliable is in fact unreliable, then it's a pointer to an ideological stance that needs careful scrutiny. Wikepedia could do with fewer zealots. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, exactly. If someone has the time, resources and/or wherewithal to significantly expand the article or to write an Andrews Government article (I'm afraid I don't), then we might be having a different discussion (emphasis on might - I'm still not sure this is all that significant). But in the absence of that, and considering this is a highly visible BLP, UNDUE has to take precedence. Frickeg (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No mention of draconian lockdowns?

And police arresting pregnant women for a FB post? Who edits this? Does the CCP control this WP article too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.31.132.225 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you a joke? She was arrested due to trying to organise a protest which was unauthorised under the current restrictions in place. If you want to contribute do not pedal crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DStrama (talk • contribs) 05:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

To answer the OP's question, Wikipedia has a number of core policies related to this. A key one is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which tells us that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That mention of sources is covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which guides us in recognising what sourcing is acceptable for our articles. On a matter such as this, that rules out tabloids such as the Herald Sun, and Sky News Australia. Probably Nine News and 3AW as well. There is also the fact that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we must be careful in commenting on news events with only short term notability. In this particular case, we are also dealing with a biography of a living person. We cannot fill such an article with political opinion. It must be 100% factual. Florid adjectives such as "draconian" simply would not belong. There is more, but I recommend at least working through those guidelines before taking this any further. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I write from Britain. I'd never heard of this guy until recently but ge's achieved worldwide publicity and notability for his policy regarding Coronavirus. It surely deserves some coverage in the article. 84.71.122.31 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What would you include, and what sources would you use? I would also note that the lockdowns are still underway, with easing now happening almost day by day, because they are achieving their goals. I certainly expect there to be something in the article eventually, but as I pointed out above, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't need daily, political point-scoring commentary. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It is an important part of his premiership and should be covered at some stage. His approach has generated a lot of commentary in Victoria but I don't think it would be useful to include the commentary. Most of the commentary in the media has been critical of Andrews and the questions asked at his daily media conferences are generally combative and accusatory. This appears to be at odds with the views of the Victorian population with more than two-thirds of voters across the state approving of his performance according to a recent Roy Morgan poll. It is an illustration that what we call the mainstream media has different interests to those of much of the population. If we were to include mention of this at the moment we should stick to what is known such as:

• the stage one and stage two lockdowns and measures such as state of emergency, state of disaster, curfew, separation of Melbourne from the rest of Victoria
• the aged care situation - even though this is mostly a federal responsibility the state government has become involved
• the changing case numbers in relation to the measures introduced
• the reason for the COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry
• the economic packages introduced to alleviate the effects of the lockdowns

It would be interesting to get an international perspective. I was only able to find a WaPo article [1].

Burrobert (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That article is appallingly inaccurate. Yet that paper is supposed to be one of America's better ones. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a mainly negative article. It didn't find room to mention that case have dropped from 750 a day to around 40 a day over 5 weeks and deaths from over 20 a day to less than 10 a day over the same period. It is in line with the local media perspective. There were some things in the WaPo article that I was unaware of: is he the "least-charismatic political leaders with no professional experience outside the center-left Labor Party or state government"? Do federal officials want him to "loosen rules that are dragging down Australia’s economy" (I know that some business people and most of the media seem to want this). Burrobert (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to answer about charisma without expressing personal opinions, which obviously don't go in the article. He's certainly doesn't possess Hollywood style good looks, and sometimes makes self-deprecatory jokes about his appearance, including his thick glasses. But I think he wins support by at least appearing to be honest and caring. It's not "federal officials" who want him loosen the rules. It's his political opponents from the party that happens to be in power federally. Obviously not a source of objective opinion in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

He may appear to be honest to you but fortunately you is just you. Others have other Points of view. Purrum (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

British writer again, this time logged in. I've no intention of getting involved in editing this article, I just write to support other editors who think the lockdown deserves a mention.Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree. Again, this may turn out to be difficult to agree on because of the politics involved, but I'm happy to try to start the ball rolling. Here is my suggested wording...

In early August 2020, following a spike in COVID-19 infections in Victoria with up to 750 new infections detected per day, Andrews declared a State of Disaster and announced Stage 4 lockdown rules for 31 metropolitan Melbourne municipalities and Stage 3 rules for regional parts of the state. The Stage 4 rules for Melbourne included compulsory face masks, all but essential businesses closed, residents only being allowed to leave their homes once a day to shop for essential items only, and once a day to exercise for a maximum of one hour. Both these activities were restricted to within five kilometres of home. All schooling was to be done remotely using electronic communication. A nightly curfew from 8pm to 5am was introduced. Exemptions existed for workers deemed essential.

The restrictions were more successful than expected in reducing the rate of infections, such that by mid-September 2020 the 14 day case average was 44.4 rather than 63 predicted by the modelling done when they were introduced. Restrictions began to ease from that time.

A good source for the initial restrictions is here, and one for the the results is here. I haven't described the restrictions as draconian there. In the spirit of WP:NPOV, I see the correct approach to be to describe the restrictions, provide a good source, and let readers decide their degree of draconianism for themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that is a good basis from which to start and would support adding it to the article. I agree about the use of "draconian" even if some sources have described the measures in that way. It is a loaded word and, if we detail the measures, readers can decide for themselves. Burrobert (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems of trying to edit politicians is that there a certain supporters that refuse to allow negative comment about the performance of their job. Purrum (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the article, rather than "certain supporters". HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Article needs to include Hotel quarantine debacle, the lockdown, calling state of disaster, night curfew, ring of steel, sending mixed signals during a pandemic for allowing 10,000 protesters without consequences gathering at a BLM rally, extension of lockdown, now nicknamed "Dictator Dan" for his captain picks, memory fades when questioned, current anti-lockdown protests, destorying the economy etcPurrum (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hotel quarantine debacle: we should mention the reason for the COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry. It should be written in a neutral way so calling it a "debacle" is not appropriate.
• the lockdown: this is mentioned in HiLo’s suggestion
• calling state of disaster: this is mentioned in HiLo’s suggestion
• night curfew: this is mentioned in HiLo’s suggestion
• ring of steel: the division between Melbourne and regional areas is mentioned in HiLo’s suggestion. We can add in the measures taken to enforce this division such as the setting up of police check points.
• sending mixed signals during a pandemic for allowing 10,000 protesters without consequences gathering at a BLM rally: I don’t remember him authorising or promoting the protest. The police are responsible for enforcing the law. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with his bio.
• extension of lockdown: the initial period of the second lockdown was for 6 weeks. This was extended for an additional period based on the numbers and advice from the state’s medical team. We can mention that.
• now nicknamed "Dictator Dan”: not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Andrews himself described it as “puerile name-calling”.
• captain picks: not sure what this refers to
• memory fades when questioned: I presume you are referring to his daily media appearances. Your wording isn’t neutral.
• current anti-lockdown protests: Are they significant enough to include? If so we can mention that they happened and the police response I guess.
• destroying the economy: We can mention the effect of the government measures on the economy if this is known yet. We should also include government measures to offset any economic fallout.
• etc: what else?

Burrobert (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

HiLo may have suggested but has failed to add to the article. Purrum (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

And another thing, Andrews desire to restructure the CFA and the creation of FRV deserves a mention.Purrum (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I think HiLo may be waiting a consensus before making the additions. Why don’t you suggest wording for the extra points you mentioned that aren’t already covered? Regarding the CFA, yes it was a reasonably significant story a while go so there are probably sources that could be used to create a summary. Given that non one has contested this, you should make the addition yourself. Burrobert (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of objections to at least include the wording I proposed above, I will add it now. More content can obviously be added later. But I do recommend to Purrum to avoid the use of obviously pejorative adjectives, and prejudiced words like "debacle" and "destroying". HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes that’s fine. It’s a start we can build on. Burrobert (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

In the infobox, it mentions Andrews’ party as the “Labor Party”. It’s a small one, but can someone remove the word “Party” so it just says “Labor”. We know Labor is a political party so including this word ‘party’ is a bit redundant. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D059:9A00:116C:ACB1:91F4:9C34 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

No - that's not the party he's the parliamentary leader of. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add to Nick-D's comment by pointing out that this is a global encyclopaedia, and we need to be precise about these things for readers not familiar with the political scene in Australia. And not all parties have the word "Party" as part of their name. The best known example would be The Australian Greens. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The initial request seems fair to me. The majority of Australian politician infoboxes use the shorter version in the interest of brevity ("Labor", "Liberal", "Greens") and those that don't tend to use the full name in the interest of precision ("Australian Labor Party", "Liberal Party of Australia", "Australian Greens"). "Labor Party" accomplishes neither brevity nor precision, and I don't see any reason to use it. I would suggest "Labor" over "Australian Labor Party" for consistency's sake but have no strong objection if "Australian Labor Party" is preferred. Frickeg (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Although - are we maybe talking about different things? I assumed the original poster was talking about the "Labor Party" that appears in the political party field, but re-reading Nick-D's comment at least (not sure about HiLo) it seems that he's talking about the "Labor Party" in "Leader of the Labor Party in Victoria". And frankly, I'd be inclined to omit that last one altogether. This is already a long, long infobox, and the relevant dates/deputies etc. are covered by the Leader of the Opposition and Premier sections. Frickeg (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Victoria bans New Year's Eve kissing

Labour state government at work lmao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:59DB:4100:C553:B7A7:A71D:11D1 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A very misleading headline from Sky, a completely unreliable source on anything to do with the ALP. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Andrews is a practising Roman Catholic."

Any citation for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:59DB:4100:C553:B7A7:A71D:11D1 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the previously used one here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Mash'd N Kutcher ft. Daniel Andrews "Get On The Beers"

New section on Daniel Andrews' sample on the Mash'd N Kutcher remix Get On the beers! (2020) should be added, as well as the Premier's response (found on his Facebook) to the song gaining a rank on the Triple J Hottest 100 of 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitiemcmen (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that would tabloid style trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Circumstances of Andrews' injury

The Liberal Party of Victoria has now called for “honesty and transparency from Daniel Andrews about the circumstances of his injury. Everyone is entitled to privacy about their health, but these questions are not about the nature of his injuries, only how he got those injuries." The Press has noted on several occasions that there is a significant level of speculation about these circumstances in the community. I believe this topic warrants some form of inclusion given the period the Premier has been absent, the extent of the speculation, and the observations that transparency has been a feature of Andrews' term. Michael773623 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sure he did not mean to gain them Kirbopher2004 (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Michael773623 - I'm sorry, but my impression of this issue is that it is pure, social media driven, conspiratorial nonsense. Can you provide any reliable sources for the issues of which you speak? HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The source HiLo48 is the formal request from the Member for Ripon This Press Release is subsequent to widespread speculation regarding the circumstances preceding the injury. Transparency ? the Victorian Information Commissioner reports a steady year-on-year decline in the release of information by Victorian departments and agencies during Andrews' term All I am proposing is that an Edit might be warranted to acknowledge the Premier has not answered reasonable questions about the circumstances leading to his injury during that week-end. Michael773623 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I am sure it was an accident Kirbopher2004 (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Two things - Firstly, I don't know what you mean by that comment. Could you elaborate please? Secondly, please observe how I have indented your comments to make readability of this discussion easier. It's explained at WP:INDENT. Do that and people will see you as a more skilled editor. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)