Talk:Wilson Tuckey

"Hardline conservatism

I quote the wikipedia article:

"Despite this, his hard-line conservatism made him a favourite of Howard's after he returned to the leadership in 1995"

Is this the same "hardline conservatism" which caused John Howard to let in record numbers immigrants for 10 straight years? The same "hardline conservatism" which caused John Howard to be "the best friend medicare has ever had"? or perhaps it's the same "hardline conservatism" which saw John Howard introduce gun control?

Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.137 (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not a place for WP:SOAPBOX. Howard's years saw increased social conservatism. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It argues a claim made in the wikipedia article. It is hardly soapbox when it goes towards establishing whether something is fact. Should an incorrect claim be allowed to remain in the article? That aside, in what way was there an increase in social conservatism?

What is incorrect? Are you saying the Howard government was no more socially conservative than the Fraser or Menzies governments? Howard himself boasted that he was the most conservative PM Australia has ever had. Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But the fact remains that John Howard let in record numbers of immigrants for 10 years. How does that make him conservative? In what way is John Howard conservative? Please give some examples.

In addition, let us consider a quote from the article:

"Mr Tuckey and his extremist racist views really do belong to another generation."

Why else would this quote be include, other than to confirm in the minds of the (white-Australian) reading population that Mr Tuckey is a good person? It is promoted in such a way that makes the reader think "it is being said in a way that is supposed to make Mr Tuckey look bad, but i now view him as looking good for being racist". My point is, if Mr Tuckey is racist or conservative, then why does he belong to a political party which let in record numbers of Muslims and Asians for 10 straight years? Why else would such a quote be included except so as to make Mr Tuckey appear "good" through reverse psychology?

Such labelling of Mr Tuckey (or Mr Howard) as conservative or racist is a wedge. What i mean by that is it creates 1 of 2 reactions from readers. It either makes them say "yes, i'm certainly voting for him! He's conservative/racist, and i consider myself to be conservative/racist" or the opposite "oh that deplorable man. I'm politically correct and detest such people".

Both opinions however are based upon the premise that Wilson Tuckey, John Howard and the Liberal Party are in fact conservative or racist. But as my point shows, how can they claim to be conservative or racist? What actions allow them to claim such a title? Certainly not their immigration policy, because not only did the Liberal party not abolish immigration, but they massively increased it.

earlier question

What is the name of the South Australian Police Minister mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs)

Propose criminal tag

As we all know, Wilson Tuckey has a criminal conviction. A criminal record. Every other article in Wikipedia about Australians with criminal records gets the tag Category:Australian Criminals. Is there any reason why an exception be made for a politician? I believe Tuckey is the only politician in Federal Parliament to have a criminal record. I hereby propose the category tag be added to this article. --Lester 06:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This isn't even a matter of discussion; you can NOT put claims of that nature into an article on a public figure without very solid sourcing (i.e. that he's known as a criminal, which he patently isn't). Rebecca (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the source [1]

“ Wilson ‘Ironbar’ Tuckey left the chamber before Rudd’s apology and said he was “horrified” by Tuesday’s ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony because it turned parliament into “a dance parlour”. (This is the guy who got his nickname from his 1967 conviction for beating an Aboriginal man with a piece of steel cable.) ”

Its not exactly a strong source to use surely there is something better like maybe a bio article somewhere thats actually about Ironbar rather than hanging it on this piece. It would also be wise to clarify whether the type of conviction because a "spent conviction" doesnt leave a criminal record. Gnangarra 11:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, having a criminal record and being tagged as a criminal are two quite different things. Paul Omodei and Don Randall both have criminal convictions, for example, but it would not be appropriate to label either as criminals. Orderinchaos 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)