Talk:AWU affair/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about AWU affair. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

ref

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)

OK, I think we should revisit this. He was named by the PM in her recent press conference. Should we still omit from this article all reference into his involvement? --Surturz (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A significant aspect of this story is already not just about what Wilson did, and what Gillard didn't do, but why this is even being talked about now and the active involvement of parts of the media, print and online. We mention the 2011 Milne story in The Australian, and its removal, but that just hints at something much bigger, that we all know happened. It would be good, but challenging, for the article to describe, with massive qualification, what Pickering and some shock jocks have been up to. (There, I've named him!) We would need very good, uninvolved sources. HiLo48 (talk) 18:05, 24 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 it online 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)

My statement remains my opinion. Read Gillard's comments and answers to questions very carefully.[6] For example, when asked if she was sacked from the legal firm, she doesn't give a straight answer - as she does to other questions. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, could you explain to us the circumstances of your departure from Slater & Gordon? Were you at any time asked to leave? Was it suggested that you resign?

PM: I determined to resign from Slater & Gordon. I did that in circumstances where there had been growing tension and friction amongst the partnership. I think these are matters of public record. Indeed, I believe you’ve commented on them yourself. There was growing tension and friction amongst the partnership. I had also been preselected to stand on the Senate ticket for the Labor Party in 1996. As history records, I was not elected, narrowly missing out. It had long been an aspiration of mine to move to a political career, so I made the determination to resign from Slater & Gordon. That is also verified by Peter Gordon and statements that have been made in recent days, but there was considerable friction and tension in the partnership at that time.

JOURNALIST: 'There has also been that statements some people at Slater & Gordon were considering terminating your employment. Was that the case?'

PM: Well I direct you to the statement made by Peter Gordon which deals with this matter. I think you are referring to a statement from Nick Styant-Browne in relation to his recollections. You would have to raise them with him. My recollections and Peter Gordon’s recollections are as I’ve just outlined them to you.

She "determined to resign" and she did resign, but when asked if it was resign or be sacked, she refers to two other people and to her own statement just made where she merely said she resigned. These things bother me - I like seeing direct answers to direct questions, and when there is evasion and deflection it makes me wonder what prompted that. It was a good performance, to be sure, carefully timed and orchestrated, but it evaded the real issues. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia content should depend on what bothers you, nor what YOU think are the real issues. That's a political rather than an encyclopaedic perspective. Let's just report accurately on what reliable sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I was unable to edit the article for a while because it was locked, but I have now added some text covering Gillard's press conference. I used HiLo48's reference from The Age, so thanks to HiLo48 for that. Also thanks to Freebird15 for his summary, above. I've now read the transcript and Freebird has made a good list of the main points, except for her claims of a sexist online smear campaign which the media have focused on. It might be worth including more than I put in - I ran out of puff last night looking for refs to cover the other points. --Surturz (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Improving the article

I'm guessing some editors are still unhappy with the article. Let's see if, together, we can work through the issues:

Article existence

If there are still some editors that think that this article should not even exist, could they please nominate it for deletion as soon as possible. I've spent a few hours editing this article already and I would not want to spend more time on it if it will ultimately be deleted. --Surturz (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The difficultly with supposed and real scandals is that their notability can be tricky to judge while they are occurring - they typically get a lot of media attention, but the interest is in what they mean long term. Personally, I think this is going to completely disappear from the media, but it needs time before that can be determined. So I'm inclined to wait until sufficient time has passed in order to determine whether or not the current revival of the issue has any significance. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Australian Financial Review (Fairfax), has this morning stated that the AWU scandal is so important as to warrant a Royal Commission (or similar) into not just the scandal itself but also into the governance of trade unions. Freebird15 (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Did they mention Gillard? HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

12 times, including the title. Did you read it? Freebird15 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess my sarcasm (probably understandably) didn't come across. The problem is that the "scandal" is being used by her enemies to attack Gillard. Since it hit the mainstream press, nothing has arisen to confirm her knowing involvement in any corruption, but we still have the "scandal" on front pages. Is it a union scandal or a Gillard scandal? There is no evidence that it should be the latter, but I'm certain that many still want it to be discussed that way in order to say negative things about her. It's political dirt and muck raking at its worst, pretending to be serious news about a union. I've been wondering if the article could be re-written with no mention of Gillard. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that, if it was, it would not be viable under BLP due to the otherwise low profile of the main actors, and the lack of any charges having been laid. - Bilby (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the absence of any charges, and non-existence of any evidence that Gillard did anything wrong, leaves us with some seemingly dodgy union official behaviour, and not much else. The real story is that some people and some sections of the media have tried to turn a mountain into a molehill for political purposes, and been fairly successful for a while, but eventually negated. If the article could be rewritten from that perspective, perhaps it could be redeemed, but right now, I can't see it happening. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a question which has bothered me, and I tend to agree with some of the points made above, most notably the lack of any charges laid against the principals. Gillard's involvement is what makes it notable now, rather than at the time when she was a young and naïve union lawyer. More to the point, continued union scandals such as the HSU thing and her apparent acceptance of opacity in union business have become a continuing theme of her prime-ministership. Both of the principals have indicated that they are willing and able to tell more - tellingly in return for money in one instance and immunity from prosecution in the other - and the once top lawyers in Slater and Gordon are making noises about setting the record straight about what went on. Quite apart from the statements already made, such as the leaking of the 1995 internal interview. Clearly there is more to this affair than has yet come to light. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I've been told, over where Surturz reported me for being rude about his POV breaches of WP:BLP, that if you continue to do the wrong thing I should report you. I really detest reporting people. Wikipedia's justice system is nothing of the kind. So I'll just say it as nicely as possible instead... Please stop the commentary and speculation about Gillard. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My response above is a direct response to a question about improving the article and I address the points already raised by others. For example the "absence of any charges", which is a direct quote from your earlier contribution. If you do not wish certain topics to be discussed, you should not introduce them into discussion yourself. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No, "the absence of charges" was a description of where our conversation has reached. And it's true. You then went way beyond that with speculation and commentary on Gillard's involvement. There is no evidence for any involvement by her, apart from the initial setting up of the fund. For you to write several sentences on that matter, to mention the HSU, and describe her attitude to union matters as "her apparent acceptance of opacity", is pushing an obvious non-neutral POV and a breach of WP:BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Google certainly sees a link. --Pete (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Google? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability issues

The original speedy of this article claimed WP:BLP vio as the reason for deletion, but from reading talk here and at Talk:Julia Gillard, I get the impression that there is a perception among some editors that this article fails notability requirements. I have just re-read WP:N and WP:EVENT and I think the article meets both the WP:GNG: the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and WP:EVENT: the event has lasting historical significance (we're still talking about it 17 years later), and has national impact, depth of coverage, duration of coverage (years), and diversity of sources. Could those editors that wish to see this article deleted please indicate which criteria from the notability guidelines they think are failed by this article? --Surturz (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The REAL story is that The Australian chose to dredge this up this year, with dishonest reporting, now retracted. It's not a story about union misbehaviour 17 years ago. It's a story about media misbehaviour this year. This article is playing into The Australian's and the oppositions hands. It makes Wikipedia a tool of one side of Australian politics. Whether you're a fan of that side or not, we should never do it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The errors in reporting have been withdrawn and public apologies made. They are relatively insignificant in themselves. The meat of the story has received wide coverage in many media outlets, as per WP:GNG and given that the thing is 17 years old and making a stir now, it has the historical significance required by WP:EVENT. I don't think there is any Wikipedia policy that operates along the lines you suggest, but I'm always open to illumination. --Pete (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrespective of the withdrawal and the apologies, that dishonest article still served to raise the issue again this year. I will bet anyone an awful lot of money that if that crooked article had not been published, THIS article wouldn't exist. Mud sticks. We should ignore it's very existence. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Peter Hartcher, from the non-Murdoch SMH:

The watershed moment was when a member of Gillard's own caucus, Robert McClelland, stood in the House on June 21. McClelland was a widely respected member of the Gillard cabinet and served as her attorney-general before she dumped him. Now speaking in his capacity as a backbencher, he rose to address the subject of a bill to crack down on fraud by union officials. In full knowledge of what he was doing, he committed an act of political bastardry against his leader[7]

This was before Hedley Thomas' recent articles in The Oz. --Surturz (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But this article was created AFTER the dishonest article in The Australian. You haven't changed my view. Wikipedia has been manipulated by corrupt journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Coverage of this issue has been reported to WP:BLP/N three times: here, here, and here. Are there any outstanding BLP issues of concern to any editor? (Please be specific - quote which bit of the article you have a problem with) --Surturz (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Revdel took care of the original libel. A couple of problems have been added since then, so we need to keep an eye on the article, but I'm not aware of any current problems along those lines. - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have some concerns about the input of inexperienced editors using dodgy sources. but with enough eyes on the article we can fix anything like that if it shows up. We have editors looking at it and ready to jump onto WP:BLPN if they are upset by anything. I think we are okay. The only outstanding point is that we talk about the Glenn Milne error (repeatedly denied and withdrawn) that she lived in the Fitzroy house. However, Gillard has several times made it a factor in her defence that material has been withdrawn from media mentions and apologies issued and she has attempted to make minor issues (such as confusing "slush fund" with "trust fund") into insinuations that the whole story is libellous. It isn't, and we have a variety of excellent sources to back up the main points. When Gillard herself makes much of these things, she also legitimises their inclusion in the story she is telling and we are recording. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

My opinion is that NPOV is best achieved in WT:AUSPOL articles by respectful collaboration among a number of editors representing a variety of different political persuasions. WP:NPOV says we should present "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Could editors please specify any significant views that they feel are not represented. One view I have not included thus far is that of Bruce Wilson himself as detailed in the ref here. I would appreciate some feedback whether other editors think this ref should be included (and I'll need help on the wording if it should). --Surturz (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that as far as possible we should include a range of pertinent opinions, and that of Wilson is certainly pertinent. Whenever he sells his story - and given that he's been working as a cook in some North Coast diner for years, he's likely to be seduced by a fat cheque - as he has indicated, we'll be right onto it. --Pete (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability

Are any references being used incorrectly? Please be specific about which sentence incorrectly represents the ref. --Surturz (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentions in Parliament

Surturz has just added a paragraph describing mentions of this "story" by Liberal members in the Victorian and federal parliament. Under parliamentary privilege politicians can say what they like in parliament, with no fear of libel or criminal charges if they lie. The only thing these mentions do is prove the (understandable) obsession of the Libs with smearing Labor. They add nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read the content carefully, or with an open mind, you'll see your error. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I admire your faith in my ability to see the error of my ways. I still insist that nothing concrete can come from statements made under parliamentary privilege. Maybe you should explain why you see it differently for simple folk like me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How does it "prove the (understandable) obsession of the Libs with smearing Labor", as you put it? Given that Robert McClelland, as stated in the material you supposedly read before complaining about, is a Labor politician? And what is the impact on our article from your observations? I would say the fact that the matter has been raised multiple times in various legislatures by politicians of multiple parties demonstrates a widespread interest in and opposition to the subject of union corruption. --Pete (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"It has been alleged..."

Bilby recently added this sentence:

It has been alleged that Gillard may have indirectly received a financial benefit through the association, and may therefore have been a recipient of fraudulently obtained funds. In particular, it has been alleged that part of her home renovations were paid for out the the fund without Gillard's knowledge, although Gillard has repeatedly denied that this occured, and no evidence to the contrary has been produced.[8]

I have a couple of problems with this addition:

The ref used is an opinion piece. I don't think WT:AUSPOL editors usually consider opinion pieces as WP:RS. (N.B. it's a bit confusing on the smh website because "political news" stories also have "opinion" in the url, but Bilby's ref is a true opinion piece)
As per WP:AWW, Bilby's addition does not say WHO made the allegations.

I think I previously added similar text attributing the allegation to Phil Gude's 1995 accusation under parliamentary privilege, but it was removed later due to BLP concerns. --Surturz (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right - it was a crappy choice of references, so I changed the references to ones already in the article. I don't have a problem with acknowledging where the accusations came from, although Phil Gude isn't an ideal choice either, as he was talking about allegations that had already been raised. Nevertheless, I attributed it to him for the moment, even though this doesn't seem to fit what is described in WP:AWW. (No one believes that the allegations don't exist, and the sources just speak of them, without attributing them). In this case, though, the point is that the allegations have been made for many years, and I don't think we have space to list everyone who has raised them. It was these unsubstantiated allegations which have been the basis of the issue, so it was surprising that we hadn't mentioned them yet. - Bilby (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Original documents sourced through freedom of information

We don't need to rely on journalists interpretations any more.

Michael Smith's new web site allows us to peruse copies of documents related to the alleged fraud.

Freebird15 (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, you need to get the Wikipedia policies changed. I suggest you do that before seeking to violate tham here. Cheers. See WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP as well as those ages defining why we do not use primary sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Freebird. Looks like a useful source to help expose some high-level dissembling. Collect is correct, in his usual charming way, about using primary sources. We need media reports to filter the facts through. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Collect, I've reviewed your links and found that Primary Sources can be used with care as follows:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Certainly seems to me that Wikipedia policy allows the article to contain statements like:

"A letter written by Det McAlpine of the WA police to a judge in 1997 stated that two AWU WA-branch bosses had complained that two other officials had stolen four hundred thousand dollars."

ie. "A primary source may .... be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Easy peasy. Freebird15 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And WP:BLP states:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

I suggest that WP:BLP is your stumbling block, not to mention that an SPS providing "primary sources" is not a valid place to use as your source. And I further suggest that "do not" is an imperative for any article subject to this policy. Collect (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we can't use them. Presumably if there is anything worthwhile in them, the media will pick it up and provide a secondary source to work with. - Bilby (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll echo what the others have said in that it is difficult to avoid WP:OR when using primary sources, so it is best to rely on secondary sources. I feel that primary sources are good candidates for the external links section though, so it is worth hunting them down. --Surturz (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Media Watch Admit Error

Johnathon Holmes of Media Watch admitted he was wrong last year to claim that Gillard had no questions to answer or had answered them. He said that her last conference in the issue had misleading assertions on important questions which needed to be addressed. I feel this means we need to evaluate the sceptics who have previously had a high value attributed to their assertions. DDB (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Media Watch transcript and the responses by Hedley Thomas make interesting reading! --Pete (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I got a very different impression from the episode than DDB, who's account is very much contrary to how I saw it, but I'd recommend the episode. Media Watch mentioned that Milne was also dropped from The Australian, so I've added that into the article. - Bilby (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My comment draws on the fact that Mediawatch took an opposing stance last year. I no longer comment on HSU because of the irrelevant fact that my cousin is Vice President of Fair Work Australia, although I have not discussed this issue and do not know his thoughts DDB (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see how different people watching it can get different impressions: there is a lot of verbatim quoting, and the impression you get can depend on whether you agree or disagree with the person being quoted. It's worth reading the transcript and skipping the quotes so you can concentrate on what Holmes himself says. The key point is that Holmes feels that Hedley Thomas' reporting was not some right-wing beat-up. It was genuine investigative reporting that discovered previously unknown facts about the episode. He also alleges that Gillard deliberately conflated Thomas' genuine reporting with Pickering's scandal sheet so that she could evade scrutiny. He also says that Milne's 2011 gaffe "might seem to you a trivial error" and alleges that Ean Higgen's typo (trust fund instead of "slush" fund) was deliberately blown out of proportion by Gillard. I do like the Holmes' quote at the end of the segment:

...thorough, professional, accurate reporting on issues like this, that otherwise fester in the murk of the internet, is a good thing, not a bad one. It’s what journalists ought to do.

I'd like to think it is what we Wikipedians should do too. --Surturz (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice sentiment. The sad thing is that this article came into existence as a result of a now totally discredited "muck" article in The Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Media Watch, because they expose so much of the lies and errors and hyperbole that characterise modern journalism. Or hasty journalism. We are aiming for a higher standard, and we have the time to look into the details. Gillard attempted to manipulate the press - which is ok, it's what public figures do - by conflating small errors and scurrilous defamation with the careful and factual reporting of Hedley Thomas, as acknowledged by Jno Holmes. We should note the Pickering campaign without quoting any of his "muck" but we should not equate that with careful and factual reporting. If this article came into existence as a result of slander from the internet, or as a result of some minor error, we could do away with it entirely, but it rests on solid facts widely reported by reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Holmes' point in regard to Hedley Thomas was that his reporting that started this round was based on good journalism, not that the allegations he was airing were correct. They were solid allegations from a reliable source, but they remained allegations, and many were contradicted shortly after being aired. Nevertheless, I agree with Holmes that Thomas' reporting was good journalism (noting that the leak of a draft press release was questionable). That doesn't, on the other hand, mean that Milne's and Smith's reporting in 2011 was good, or that the main reason the issue hangs around isn't muckracking. And, of course, none of this means that The Australian's motives were pure.

In relation to the article, it just means that Thomas should continue to be regarded as a reliable source for the allegations he aired, but that doesn't mean that the allegations themselves were correct, or that Gillard's subsequent press conference response wasn't solid. - Bilby (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bilby, you're quite right to change 'Hedley' to 'Thomas'. We can't have you referring to a reporter on a first name basis, can we? People might think you're an insider ;) LOL Freebird15 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor fellow must get called "Thomas Hedley" all the time ;-) --Surturz (talk) 01:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)