Talk:AWB Limited

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for AWB Limited:
  • Describe the operation and reasons for the single desk
  • Ownership structure:
    • A class shares owned by growers have control
    • B class shares owned by investors
  • History of Australian Wheat Board before privatisation
  • Other businesses owned by AWB
  • Infobox
  • picture
  • List directors and senior managers?
WikiProject Australia / Melbourne (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon AWB Limited is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (marked as Low-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Single Desk[edit]

... somehow i dont think it should link, or be referred to as a monosomy... perchance monopsony was meant... though AWB ltd is still a monopoly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's silly that there was a single-board, government supported monopoly organisation, for a food product that is questionable as far as it's health value.

New article[edit]

I think there should probably be a new article named "AWB oil-for-food scandal" which I'll start if I have the time. Georgeslegloupier 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's possible, but I'd leave it here until there's a significant body of info to move. This may still turn out to be a storm in a teacup, or it might turn out big enough that it shouldn't have AWB in the name. If you're going to write enough to start with, go ahead and make it an article. (how's that for ambivalence?) --Scott Davis Talk 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's going to be plenty big. At this stage, it's probably better at wiki-news. We can create a new article here once things settle down. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This event undoubtedly deserves its own article, but does anyone have a preferred title? I'm thinking AWB Oil-for-Food scandal would be appropriate, Brendanfox 09:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Do you intend to keep it that narrow? How about Australian oil-for-food scandal or Australian wheat to Iraq scandal? It seems likely to include government or DFAT staff, and possibly other companies. None of the other allegations and investigations in Oil-for-Food Programme have subarticles yet to cheat off a naming scheme. Pick any name for now. The article can be moved later when we see what it ends up being about. --Scott Davis Talk 10:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Fresh thought for the morning - what about Cole enquiry or Cole Enquiry? --Scott Davis Talk 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Cole enquiry is the best title for now, if anyone wants to start it in the mean time, otherwise I'll get it started in the next day or two, Brendanfox 01:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I was about to start it but I couldn't resist statring 'The Cole enquiry is a textbook example of the the Australian political truism "Never set up an inquiry unless you already know the outcome". Albatross2147 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Have started article on AWB Oil-for-Wheat Scandal. Figured that while article on Cole Inquiry exists, topic is not broad enough to cover UN investigation, litigation etc in much detail TurquoiseThreads (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Wheat Board vs AWB Limited[edit]

I renamed this article from Australian Wheat Board to AWB Limited, as the article is mostly about the modern company, not the historic agency. I've changed all the links to it that are definitely to the company, but have left the ones that mean the old wheat board or that I'm not sure of. The two I don't know are

Could somebody who knows either fix them or comment here that they should be left please? --Scott Davis Talk 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In some ways, I'm includined to prefer the old name, with a redirect from this page, as it's the more commonly used. Pending other people's input on that, I'll update those two pages. The events under discussion stradle the change from public ownership to (technically if in practice not completely private) private ownership, so I think everything should point directly here, whereever here is.  :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if commentators and even the pollies are slack and refer to AWB Limited as "the Board". It is a company which is an entirely different legal entity to the old Australian Wheat Board. We should try to be accurate with nomenclature. In any event AWB Limited carries on an entirely different character of business to the old Board ie. the sale of wheat overseas is but one part of its business activities. Albatross2147 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly about AWB Limited, and that is a different entity to the former Australian Wheat Board. The current scandal appears likely to span both entities though. --Scott Davis Talk 13:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the scandal then have its own article? Albatross2147 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been convinced of that above, but I don't intend to start it. --Scott Davis Talk 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Crikey timeline[edit] have put together a very nice timeline of 24 key events in the sanction busting scandle. Adding it to the article verbatim would be a copyvio. Rewording it would hide the fact that it's a copy vio, but I still think it would be plagarism. Suggestions please? Ben Aveling 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"AWB Ltd." vs "AWB Limited"[edit]

I have renamed the article back to "AWB Limited" as the company is never known as "AWB Ltd.". --Scott Davis Talk 13:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Third paragraph[edit]

"However on 22 December, the Howard government issued permits for two other companies to start exporting wheat"

What year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)