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)

Clicked on that "source" and got "The page you're looking for doesn't exist". The other two sources below do not give us anything concrete at all on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the Libs removed the item after receiving quite a lot of negative feedback about it. I couldn't find anything on the Lib site about the item. One of the other sources is from May 2020 and so is not relevant to this point. The other source is about a blog that connected the fall with the Fox family and included some discussion from anonymous sources about whether it would have been better to release more information about the fall. I don't think we should include unsubstantiated speculation and fishing expeditions about someone's injury in their bio. Burrobert (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks HiLo48 and Burrobert, the removal of the Press Release is informative. The other citations were provided merely to demonstrate that the speculation was sufficient to warrant comment in a major paper, and for Mr Fox to consider legal action. The second citation validates that transparency has declined during Andrews' term. I agree no change is currently warranted . . .

Article reads like self promotion

This has nothing to do with the header, and nothing to do with the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Came here after watching a video published through Twitter with Andrews replying to a question, making a rambling, word salad statement regarding Covid vaccination. Specifically where he starts to suggest that the unvaccinated will be refused medical / hospital treatment if unvaccinated and that the vaccine refuseniks were the cause of the spread of the disease. The almost incoherent rambling swivel eyed statement sounding like a drunken madman - at least to me, an Englishman used to Boris Johnson (UK P.M.) stuttering delivery. Reading this article, it revolves around a commentary and statistics on his handling of Covid (and little else). After watching the Twitter video it was almost as if there is some kind of disaster on the scale of the Black Death and the man had been coerced at gunpoint into an unrehearsed and totally unprepared hysterical press release. The man seemed like a loony - or is it just an Australian thing? This is just an observation from "The Old Dart" after watching aghast the Twitter video. Otherwise Victoria and it's leadership is very strange indeed. Is there a point to the above? HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I think our anonymous friend is giving their impression of a "rambling, word salad". Burrobert (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I thought of describing it as an "almost incoherent rambling swivel eyed statement", but I'm glad you started it! HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC) References

Tabloid trivia, surely

@Onetwothreeip: @Simba1409: - Andrews being fined for accidentally breaching mask rules is NOT a significant part of his life. It's just part of the 24 hour news cycle. It will quickly disappear from the news. I don't believe it belongs in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's suitable given the pandemic section on his profile. He has broken the rules introduced by his Government during the pandemic and I think that's quite notable, although I do agree regarding the news cycle. A leader getting fined is also a very rare occurrence. If there is consensus to remove it, then no worries (which is why I didn't add it back myself) but I do think it should stay. --Simba1409 (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything in the article has disappeared from the news cycle. This is directly relevant to him, it doesn't belong anywhere else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It's tabloid trivia. Nothing else. It says nothing about his personality, his attitude, his overall behaviour, his...well anything! HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it can go under the personal life section? Tony Abbott has his mask fine there also. --Simba1409 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Neither belongs. We don't report on every parking fine these people have copped. And they are probably more deliberate offences than those under discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of electoral officers section removal

Keen to seek consensus for removal of this section. It is not about Daniel Andrews. It is about the Vic Labor party and Andrews wasn't even involved. It belongs on the Vic Labor page, not here. --Simba1409 (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Belongs in the election articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If there are no objections in a few days, I'll remove the section because as stated it doesn't belong on this page. --Simba1409 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021

Fix vandalism 49.192.60.138 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Treason

There is something about Dan Andrews being convicted of treason.

Please see the article below:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjwXmut5oUY

49.178.92.40 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to watch a random YouTube video. I recommend you have a read of WP:YOUTUBE. If Andrews really has been convicted of any crime, it's bound to be documented in a written reliable source. That's what you need to present here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this is the link...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10306595/amp/Victorian-Premier-Daniel-Andrews-listed-court-concealing-TREASON.html 49.178.92.40 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's no better. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this better than YouTube?49.178.92.40 (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You will see at the link I provided that Wikipedia's consensus on the Mail is that it is generally not a reliable source. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The story also appears in The Hun, of course, which seems to be regarded as reliable, and elsewhere. It is a private prosecution, which will take place in the Myrtleford Magistrates’ Court. The HS says "The case — while expected to be dismissed — has exposed a little-known power where anyone can pay $85.70 and bring a private prosecution against another person. The practice hails from the early days of the justice system, where victims of crimes brought their own cases to the king’s court". Burrobert (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't regard The Hun as a reliable source. It's part of the Murdoch stable, and cannot be relied upon to tell the truth on any matter concerning the ALP. Good for the footy score though. I note that the opening line here spoke of a conviction. That's quick justice! HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Is it only in Victoria or other parts of Australia and the British Commonwealth?49.178.92.40 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

HiLo48 That’s a subjective opinion not grounded on objective truth. It’s completely irrelevant how the Herald Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch it doesn’t change much of the news and stories they present. What matters is that they have reported on a story that has already been covered by numerous media outlets regardless if they are so called “left wing” or “right wing”. The fact that you consider the Herald Sun and the The Daily Mail as “unreliable” tells me your biased towards the far left and therefore your opinions are unreliable because your not being neutral nor objective. Personally I would argue the ABC is more unreliable than any other media/news publication. Paok117 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you have a read of [[2]] to see some of the concerns editors see with The Hun. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don’t really think this should be a subject on the talk page of Daniel Andrews Kirbopher2004 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

HiLo48 is a gatekeeper who will not allow any criticisms of Labor figures like Andrews to remain on WP. Just because he believes that the Herald Sun isn't a reliable source doesn't make it so and no reason to not use it as a source in articles, regardless of what discussion saying otherwise he can link to. 124.170.113.59 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I agree, but we do have this policy about reliable sources. Probably best to provide a link to the exact article in the Herald-Sun for checking. Articles are generally okay as sources, opinion pieces not so much. If something is true and notable then it will probably be found in several other sources. The Australian, for example. As Daniel Andrews is a living person, WP:BLP applies and sources should be carefully chosen if the topic is controversial, as I imagine a charge of treason might be. Perhaps wait until The Grauniad runs the same story? Even the most devoted Daniel Andrews lickspittle will have no problems with that. --Pete (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking further into this, it seems that it was a stunt, and promptly rejected by the local beak.[3] Hardly something that needs to go into a biographical article about a well-regarded leader. --Pete (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

well regarded? um, ok. Save it for the less regarded. 124.170.112.238 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I recommend you don't make the mistake of thing Pete is a fan of Andrews. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. But Andrews IS well regarded by the voters. See this. HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did I say he's a fan? And opinion polls are just that: opinions. Of a 1000 or so people. BTW, are you a Dan fan? 124.170.112.238 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm a fan of too many mainstream big-party politicians. Barack Obama, Jacinda Ardern, Alfred Deakin, a few others. Daniel Andrews is well-regarded, including by me. Nevertheless, this treason thing was a stunt, was thrown out in court, and has no legitimacy. It's not worth mentioning in this article, though perhaps if there is an article on Screwball anti-vaxxers this might warrant a sentence or two. Have at it. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What's anti-vaxxers got to do with it? lol. If he's so universally well regarded why is there a lock on this page, are people trying to add info on things like the red shirts rorting? Why is there no mention of this, the current IBAC hearings etc.? 124.170.104.143 (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It's locked to protect the article from vandalism, both deliberate (of which there has been far too much), and also caused by large numbers of inexperienced, enthusiastic editors of the kind the article seems to attract, who make innocent mistakes. If you believe something needs to be added to the article, feel to to recommend it here on the Talk page, with appropriate reliable sourcing. We will not, however, add content about ridiculous, failed court cases and obvious politically biased nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Politically biased nonsense. Oh the irony. But yeah, Dan's going through a rough trot at the moment, as are all the heads of government in Australia. Too many people blaming them for some aspect of the pandemic, and they can't win. Is there an article where criticism of government actions and the resulting protests, riots, spreader events can be accumulated? That movement is notable in itself rather than in the various Premier/PM articles as a hodgepodge of partisan comment. --Pete (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I second that stance Kirbopher2004 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

What stance? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there an article on the red shirts rorts? It isn't mentioned here. 124.170.122.115 (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be no article on that subject. It could be relevant to articles about the Victorian ALP or the 2014 Victorian State election. It does not appear to be directly relevant to Andrews' page. In 2018, the police started an investigation under the name operation Ocotillo, after a report by Ombudsman Deborah Glass found the Labor Party misused $388,000 in taxpayer funds by falsely signing timesheets for Labor field organisers and campaigners to pay them for ALP work in the 2014 state election. Andrews was not one of MP's that the police wanted to interview. The police said it would not prosecute anyone over the scandal. Burrobert (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this a serious response? 124.170.116.21 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.116.21 (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I do wish you could write some meaningful words telling us what you are trying to demonstrate there. I did you the courtesy of looking at each one of those links. The first is about what the inquiry cost. The second is about Andrews being "explosively" accused. The third said the police would do some investigating. The fourth involved a sacked minister complaining about the person who sacked him. The fifth doesn't mention Andrews at all. The sixth was about allegations that senior police prevented junior police from arresting some politicians. None of these explicitly discuss Andrews in any way other than in the form of allegations. This is the article about Dan Andrews, the person. It's not about his government. It's a biography of a living person. We cannot fill such an article with unproven allegations. That is very clear Wikipedia policy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Demonstrate? That you're a gatekeeper to this article; the red shirts was a misappropriation of funds during the '14 election campaign when Andrews was ALP leader & seeking the office of Premier. He later apologized & ALP paid the $ back yet you consider it not worthy of mention in his biog? That says it all really. Unless, of course, he had a lobster with a mobster then it would be a compulsory inclusion ... 124.170.116.21 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's just another allegation, this time from you. None of the six sources you listed in your previous post explicitly say what you have again just alleged. Without a reliable source that says that, it's not going in the article. Even WITH such a source, you have to demonstrate that it directly involved Andrews and that it belongs in his biography. Wikipedia can be sued for publishing unsupported, derogatory allegations. I also recommend that you stop talking about me. Anyone can contribute to this discussion. I cannot and am not preventing anyone else from doing so, but if you keep discussing other editors, action WILL be taken. NOTE: I also recommend you have a look at WP:INDENT, which tells you about structuring discussions effectively on Talk pages through indentation. HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"allegation" [10]

Yes, oh gatekeeper. Take action. Against what? An indentation infraction? 124.170.110.51 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

[11] [12] [13] [14] 124.170.110.51 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we must stick precisely to policy. We should all bookmark this very pertinent statement of yours and bring it out when required. It is of supreme importance. --Pete (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pleased you agree with me on that, but what about the issue at hand? HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion is not progressing. If anyone wants to include a mention of this episode in DA's bio, provide a suggested wording with sources supporting that wording. Burrobert (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Birth date sources

I could not find a single reliable source about his birthdate. I have found sources about his age and his Twitter account has his birthday but not source about his birth date. 2600:100C:A202:CE24:4C91:80C6:4A04:B9C7 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's in the Victorian Parliamentary Handbook, see PDF here. --Canley (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Daniel Andrews 2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP violations re: IBAC

There are multiple BLP violations throughout this article, notably in regards to allegations in regards to IBAC. One was implying that Andrews had been investigated re: red shirts which is blatantly defamatory. It has been removed. There is another accusation regarding an IBAC investigation which has a broken link which directly implies again that Andrews was under investigation. Google leads me to believe that is not the case. I've added a citation needed tag for now but that section will need to be removed also if a citation is not added which backs up the allegation made. AlanS^talk 02:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Since it's a BLP, feel free to remove such content on sight. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You're correct. I've just had time to review some material concerning the second IBAC section and it is clear that the investigation was not into Andrews. Clearly this is both WP:SYNTH and a BLP violation with the defamatory insinuations that were being made. AlanS^talk 04:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I’d be comfortable with them instead reading that the IBAC investigations were into the ‘Andrews Government’ but yes they shouldn’t be said to be into Andrews himself unless specifically stated Jack4576 (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Both sections, with the headings and content were written in a way to lead a reader into the impression that investigations were into Andrews himself. Both violations of WP:SYNTH and BLP violations. AlanS^talk 06:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes they ought to be re-worded to avoid that. Jack4576 (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a possibility that could happen but then you're not left with not much to say because Andrews involvement was that he was interviewed about going ons in departments that weren't Premier and Cabinet. A sentence on each occurrence at best? I'm not sure that would even constitute a sub-section. Anything more would potentially be WP:UNDUE given Andrews limited involvement in investigations which he was not the subject of. AlanS^talk 10:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Given that he was the head of the Government at the time, I don't think it'd be UNDUE. He's ultimately bears political responsibility for what happened. Its an investigation of a Government that he's ultimately in charge of. Jack4576 (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I didn't communicate very well. I was more talking about how much content someone might actually put into it without it going into the territory of being potentially UNDUE. Yes, you're correct he's the head of Government but if we drew that to the logical extreme with every minute matter to do with his government? AlanS^talk 12:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree that only a moderate amount of prose on the subject is warranted here. Jack4576 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Redshirts might warrant a moderate amount but the other IBAC investigation that was referenced I actually had no idea what it was about and had to research it so then the question is how much would potentially be appropriate to devote to that given it was concerning the awarding of a contract by the Department of Health and Human Services Victoria? AlanS^talk 00:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Potentially a paragraph. It was reported on at length in The Age and the Herald Sun; and Andrews was directly involved in the lobbying conversations prior to that election as per those sources. It wasn’t simply public servants that were involved as per the reporting Jack4576 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The Herald Sun has been a very poor source on anything to do with the ALP in Victoria since it was the Sun News Pictorial. It's Murdoch trash, and he HATES Labor and unions, so he lies about them. Sadly, The Age is now part of Nine Entertainment, a media conglomerate chaired by former Liberal Treasurer, Peter Costello. It has also become very biased on Australian political matters. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Either of those sources may be biased on occasion, but they are non-deprecated. As editors it is our job to determine sensibly whether or not they are a RS on the issue at hand. Their prominence and audience as sources make them important sources even if their editorial slant is biased Jack4576 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Use them if you insist, but a lot of editors will be like me and disregard and treat with contempt anything from those sources on Australian political matters. To be totally honest, I also feel less respect for editors who insist on using them. There are much more reliable sources around. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Disregarding large newspapers out-of-hand without careful consideration of the value of the source in the context of the article is inappropriate in my view

and you shouldn't say you feel less respect for editors who 'insist on using them'. That is totally inappropriate. There are times where those sources are the only available significant coverage of a certain subject. Regardless, you should never hold another editor with less respect merely because they are advocating for the use of a certain mainstream media source

I dislike the legacy of Rupert Murdoch as much as anyone else; but we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

There aren't always more reliable sources around. It depends on the topic. For political topics, especially LNP/ALP related topics, I agree that care needs to be taken. Jack4576 (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been giving Murdoch's busllshit careful consideration for half a century. It's as bad now as it ever was. Costello is newer at the game, but heading in the wrong direction. GREAT care needs to be taken. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576 you are correct that sometimes Murdoch's papers are the only sources to be had but WP:BLPRS says unambiguously that material should not be added to an article when the ONLY sources are from tabloid journalism and Murdoch's papers are unequivocally tabloid journalism. AlanS^talk 08:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"Murdoch's papers are unequivocally tabloid journalism"

Not true. 'The Australian' is not a tabloid

Please don't use such hyperbolic language, its just not helpful to the wikipedia project. Clearly not every paper ever owned by Murdoch is a tabloid. Some of the paper's in that family's portfolio are more strictly edited than others. Most people know this

Even some of his tabloid-y papers aren't always 'unequivocally' tabloids. Certain sections of newspapers can be described as 'tabloid-y', while others are not. I wouldn't expect the Herald Sun to be a RS on climate change. I am fine with it though as a RS for crime-reporting, sports reporting, and restaurant reviews

You can't exclude all of Murdoch's papers out of hand like that. Or at least, you really shouldn't; and any suggestion that we should needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Its our job as editors to parse sources. There's no getting around the necessary complexity involved in that task by coming up with a blanket rule against all Murdoch; even if the family's outlets are often distasteful or politicised Jack4576 (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576 my reading of WP:BLPRS is that something might be a RS while still being constituted as tabloid journalism. Further being tabloid journalism doesn't preclude a source from being cited, just that we shouldn't include material in BLPs where tabloid journalism are the only sources.

Perhaps you are right that I should have separated out The Australian, it's not as sensationalist, but I didn't have that in mind. I primarily had The Sydney Telegraph and Melbourne Herald in mind. AlanS^talk 02:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree Jack4576 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We'll have to see what someone writes, if they choose to. If it was the same as before implying in one case and outright saying in the other that Andrews was the subject of the actual investigations it will need to be removed per WP:BLP. AlanS^talk 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Content in lead

@SirWellsy99, I suggest you bring any contentious content here prior to adding it into the lead, particularly when it contains sentences along the lines of "criticised for overseeing party branch stacking", an accusation for which there has been no finding of criminal guilt by a court of law. AlanS^talk 00:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

branch stacking is not a criminal offence. It is fine to include branch stacking allegations if there are RS to support the claim. Jack4576 (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576 the material specifically said that Andrews oversaw the stacking. Not merely that he was leader at a time when it occured. That he oversaw it, directed it. That's some extremely contentious material for a BLP. I'd expect a court to be making that sort of determination. AlanS^talk 00:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Courts -cannot- make such a determination, because branch stacking is neither unlawful, nor illegal, and so it is not a justiciable issue

I have no problem with branch stacking allegations being included here if they are from a sufficiently reliable source (such as The Age, or the ABC) Jack4576 (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jack4576 it's not even in the body, so it's not appropriate for anything to be placed lead until such time as there is something in the body. It's certainly not appropriate to say that he was "overseeing" any stacking. AlanS^talk 02:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for not discussing this before publishing first. I wanted to improve the content in lead by having something similar in template to Kevin Rudd and other notable Australian political leader pages. My first draft was arguably a bit too negative so I attempted a secondary draft; en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Andrews&oldid=1166827927. In regards to the branch stacking scandal, the Youtube reference I used is arguably not as reputable as other sources. The ABC one included is better: "Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews apologises after IBAC investigation finds 'extensive misconduct' by Labor MPs". I just found this one from 9News which is relevant and reputable. "Premier Daniel Andrews takes 'full responsibility' after report details 'extensive misconduct' by Victorian Labor MPs". Happy to hear your thoughts! Would be great to have a somewhat detailed and unbiased paragraph in the lead. SirWellsy99 (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see my sandbox for my drafts. SirWellsy99 (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@SirWellsy99. A few points. Your suggested edit still has the phrase "overseeing party branch stacking". Oversee has the following meaning "supervise (a person or their work), especially in an official capacity." I hope you see the issue here. Secondly there is nothing in the body about the red-shirts scandal. You're putting the cart before the horse. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Thirdly, you're put in a bit about a decrease in popularity following cancelling the games and while it might be appropriate to have a brief section in the body about cancelling the games the lead should not be a blow by blow account of moves in his poll approvals. AlanS^talk 02:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@SirWellsy99 thanks for engaging here. The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article and at the moment the branch stacking scandal is not in the in the article as it was removed because the previous material was a BLP violation. I'd suggest that if you want to include material that you'd need to work on agreeable material for the body first. Putting it in the lead first is putting the cart before the horse. Additionally in regards to the wording that you were using stating that Andrews oversaw the branch stacking, I'd suggest any sort of phrasing in that manner is not appropriate as it suggests that Andrews was across the branch stacking when there is no evidence or reporting to that effect. AlanS^talk 01:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries, but I beg to differ though in regards to Andrews and the overseeing of party branch-stacking incidents. It is assumed that he was not directly "overseeing" the branch-stacking, but as per the ABC and 9News references, he took "full responsibility" for the activity under his watch as leader of the party - which could be viewed as "overseeing" the conduct but not directly involved or implicated. I will make some changes nonetheless. SirWellsy99 (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The word oversee explicitly means involvement, not merely taking responsibility for. AlanS^talk 02:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @SirWellsy99 I support the inclusion of the Andrews Government's involvement in the branch stacking scandal.

Unlike AlanS I don't agree its inclusion would be a WP:BLP violation. Branch stacking is an internal ALP political matter, it is not illegal or unlawful. We do not need to wait for a court determination before including highly relevant political scandals about a political subject.

I'd prefer it though it such content was phrased neutrally; and only suggests a direct involvement by Andrews if a reliable source says so. Otherwise, it should merely note that he presided over such a scandal but that no direct involvement has been established. Jack4576 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Saying that Andrews was "overseeing" branch stacking certainly is a BLP violation. Note that WP:BLPUNDEL applies here. Editing to include any contentious material without consensus will be reverted and brought before the BLP Noticeboard. Any material on the red-shirts scandal should be agreed upon here first and should be included in the body first, before then thinking about having a shorter amount in the lead. AlanS^talk 02:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@AlanS, I agree that the branch stacking material should be added in the body first, to avoid 'dead-end' content, but should not completely reduce lead content. SirWellsy99 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@SirWellsy99 I support inclusion of the red-shirts scandal, and the branch-stacking scandal, so long as its worded in language that states it as part of the circumstances of the Andrews Government and his tenure as premier; rather than attributing it to him personally (unless supported by reliable sources).

If you are able to do that, we would have a consensus for inclusion that @AlanS would have to accept. (unless he was to obtain comment from other editors in support of his position) Jack4576 (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed @Jack4576, once relevant body content is added I will draft another version of the proposed lead content which takes this into consideration. Consensus may be possible thereafter. SirWellsy99 (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with inclusion of material about red-shirts itself, but the your phrasing was problematic. Also notably your paragraph was adding in content already covered in the lead (covid, bushfire and progressive reform) and so I don't think you needed to edit as much as you were. Once you've added in content in the body (and please bring it here first) perhaps only a sentence or two in the lead is what I think would be appropriate. AlanS^talk 02:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead to include major political issues during his Govt, positive and negative Jack4576 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That's much better written. For now I'll give up my objection about content in the lead needing to reflect the body presuming that will soon reflected. AlanS^talk 03:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@AlanS Now a WIP, rest assured SirWellsy99 (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Could still be better, but it is a good improvement. Thanks for that. SirWellsy99 (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries @Jack4576, I will factor that in and try making some improvements. I definitely want to make this content as neutral, factual and reputable as possible. SirWellsy99 (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@SirWellsy99 also remember that not everything needs to get stuck in the lead. For example, there's nothing about the commonwealth games getting cancelled in the body of the article. Why are you proposing material about it goes in the lead? Please read WP:UNDUE AlanS^talk 02:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed @AlanS in hindsight. Comm games and branch stacking content will be drafted then added to the body first. Lead content can be reconsidered thereafter. I assume you don't object to body content about Comm games and branch stacking being added? SirWellsy99 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@SirWellsy99 both things are notable to his government, so it makes sense that they should be included in the article. Can I suggest however that you seek consensus on any wording in regards to the red-shirts scandal. Previous section have been removed because it explicitly alleged that Andrews was investigated by IBAC over the issue, which he wasn't. Regarding the Comm games as long as you use sources from a couple of different places (not just the Herald) and it's not too long, I don't see how you could see how that could be contentious unless you deliberately tried to make it so. AlanS^talk 02:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the Cth games cancellation in the lead would be undue, but would have a good place in the body. It should note that the cancellation of the games had a significant short-term impact on his party's polling. Jack4576 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Would it still be preferred once relevant body content is added, that I rephrase the polling and comm games references so that one or both can still be mentioned in the lead? SirWellsy99 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think the Comm games has enough weight to go into the lead. See WP:RECENTISM and also WP:UNDUE. AlanS^talk 02:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @AlanS. Although there is recent reporting that the Cth games has had a major effect on polling of the Govt; it is too soon to say whether it is going to have a sustained and major effect such that i'd be worth mentioning in the lede. Jack4576 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, while you might note that in the body that it had a temporary effect, the lead isn't really the place to give a blow by blow account of each policy announcement on the Government's poll numbers. It would soon get quite unwieldy were we to do that. AlanS^talk 03:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok no worries, I'll leave the Comm games out of it for now (let it run its course) SirWellsy99 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule out putting something into the body of the article. It's a big announcement and its gotten a bit of press but I just wouldn't focus on poll numbers because they go up and down. AlanS^talk 05:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The use of one recent poll to imply a political narrative in the lede is problematic and is recentism. These things certainly should be discussed in the body but polling should be treated cautiously in general. Generally the body of this article is underdeveloped and lacks detail. It's worth noting that the Kevin Rudd is an ex-politician and there is more room for "normative" evaluations of reception and legacy in the lede once a leader has left office. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed @Gracchus250, I am not a perfect analyst but it will be easier to write in reflection once Andrews has left. SirWellsy99 (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Two comments. Firstly, short term changes in opinion poll figures simply don't belong in the article. They have zero impact on government and governance. Secondly, re branch stacking - this is something the media gets very excited about, but which is ill-defined, and its impacts are rarely explained. Members are always trying to recruit new members to their branches. It's not normally described as branch stacking. At some point, when the balance of branch membership changes enough to upset somebody, it will be called branch stacking. Some of the behaviour around these events is certainly, at times, unethical, but that too is a subjective call. Branch stacking also never really does any harm to anyone outside the party. It's all internal stuff. The media, however, never explains that. My point is that as well as not being illegal, it cannot even be properly defined, and typically does more harm than good to a party. Because of all this, it's very hard to sensibly write anything in the article about it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Understood @HiLo48, my intended aim was to have a neutral, yet fairly thorough lead text which does touch on the past achievements and challenges of his premiership. I wasn't perfect but very grateful to be having this discussion now. SirWellsy99 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with all you’re saying @HiLo48 excepting “it’s very hard to sensibly write anything in the article about it”

The red-shirts scandal is pretty easily defined and pretty prominent a scandal. Party memberships were bought in a dishonest manner to inflate political support for some members at branches. It’s understandable this is a scandal given that it’s a governance issue in an important political institution; one of the major parties .

To re-iterate, ‘branch stacking’ is a loose term, but the crux of the red shirts scandal was about falsified membership numbers amongst the ALP’s factions; including both Somyurek’s faction (the right) and Andrews’ faction (the socialist left), although the ombudsman categorically came out against the idea of Andrews having a personal involvement in the affair

Its a high-profile scandal and I think it deserves some mention in a section regarding the history of his premiership Jack4576 (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed @Jack4576, these are worth a mention at minimum. SirWellsy99 (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, so long as you can find a truly independent, high quality, reliable source for it, and sadly, these are becoming harder to find. HiLo48 (talk) 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Resignation

Resignation as of 26/09/2023 with live press conference. Effective 27/09/2023 at 17:00 AEST Postmethod (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Already noted in the article. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games Cost

"...the Premier said the cost had escalated to an estimated $6–7 billion, double the estimated benefits, and the government could not justify the expense."

Reliable source to back this statement: [15] https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/commonwealth-games-costs-too-high-over-6-billion 220.235.235.63 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. TarnishedPath^talk 10:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023

Adding information on resignation I touch grass, you don't (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

What would you like to change? ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 07:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add some information regarding the Premier's resignation :) I touch grass, you don't (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Refer to Daniel Andrews#Third_term_(2022–2023) which Rhain has done a good job on. Unless significant reasons come out beyond those already given for his resignation I think that is the appropriate WP:DUE weight and no more content should be added. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologise if I need to, I saw the section, but then it disappeared so I sought after adding it back, which I didn’t realise existed.

sorry! have a great day or night :D I touch grass, you don't (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

All good. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

He does not formally resign until he visits the Governor at 5pm on 27 September. 203.8.131.32 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

'Prominent figure among progressive politicians in Australia'

There's a sentence in the lede which says this very thing.

Change to A PROMINENT FIGURE (determiner)

or ONE PROMINENT FIGURE (pronoun).

(you could even say "One of the more" or "One of the most" - that might not be neutral point of view if we can't source it)

(the point is that "promient figure" can't be naked).

--58.108.122.0 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC).

 Done. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Car crash and cover up

https://www.scribd.com/document/780523273/Shuey-Expert-Statement-Sup-Court

Bit surprised that this gets ignored. I suppose you could argue that it was his wife who was driving , but I'd have thought it was a relevant part of this article. I doubt she'd have got away with it if she hadn't been married to Chairman Dan. And off to court they go. Personally, and irrelevantly, they seem to me to be over-egging the pudding on the vehicle acceleration bit, Greglocock (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant mud slinging. Not covered as WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 23:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)