Talk:Health Services Union expenses affair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name

When I created this article on the release of the FWA report, I called it the Craig Thomson affair, but my alternate choice was HSU controversy or something similar. At that time there was nothing concrete to report about the other activities going on in the HSU, so I stayed with CTa, but if and when charges are laid against other members, then the scope will certainly widen. I think that's going to happen, but that's crystal-balling. I certainly have no objection to a name change along those lines --Pete (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's forgiveable crystal-balling, since it allows it to become more WP:NPOV, and reduces the WP:BLP issues - especially a possible issue with WP:BLPCRIME, since he's not been convicted of anything. Note: at this point I still support outright deletion, but I think it needs to be given the WP:TNT treatment even if an article on this subject (with a more neutral name) ends up being kept. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Craig Thomson affair for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Craig Thomson affair is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Thomson affair until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

I have notified a number of editors involved in this article, but in case I missed anyone, I'm also notifying here. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete it. Salt it. Better still, nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the AfD discussion, I see a mention of Utegate, which on examination looks like an accurate description of a far less significant or notable political scandal. The significance is that it led to the downfall of Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader, which on the face of it was good news for Kevin Rudd. The level of detail, the language used, the sources and conclusions look like an excellent model for this article. The only thing it lacks is a picture of the vehicle in question. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I've changed the lead to read The Craig Thomson affair refers to a long-running Australian political controversy involving allegations that union funds and credit cards administered by Craig Thomson before entering parliament were used to pay for escorts, to withdraw more than $100,000 in cash, and to bankroll the election campaign for his federal seat of Dobell.. The allegations are supported by the source provided, but I have toned them down to match what Thomson himself admitted to in Parliament on 21 May 2012, though he did not admit any wrong-doing. As the allegations were made in 2009 and it is now 2012, I think "long-running" is accurate and appropriate. --Pete (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it back - it was less opinionated/undue before. - perhaps a consensus of support will arise here - please allow discussion and support to arise for disputed changes on the talkpage as per WP:BRD - thanks Youreallycan 05:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries. What's undue about it? The allegations are the focus of the controversy, and those listed have all been admitted by Thomson himself. --Pete (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It was just more neutral before your edit - the lede is not a place to add claims like that - bankroll? which are disputed - they can't be explained and expanded on there - so - the basics and then let them be explained in the body of the article - Youreallycan 06:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A direct lift from the source there. What's to dispute anyway? Thomson has admitted each of those items. We can't pretend he denied it when we have him saying so in Parliament to a national audience. When talking about the findings of the FWA report, we're going to be summarising a 1 100 page document, and the lead will include a summary of that. But happy to wait until we get there. --Pete (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And again -- Wikipedia does not have articles to be summaries of long reports. The reader can read the report - all we do is list the main facts - not the whole schmear. Collect (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what a summary is? A list of the main facts? The FWA report is central to the controversy, as is Thomson's statement to Parliament two weeks later. This article needs to link to both, so readers may check the complete source documents, but we're not going to be doing much beyond pulling selected facts out of them, or preferably we find a summary that's already published and link to that as well, but we aren't going to do more than summarise that in its turn. We find good sources representing the main views, string our summaries together in some sort of coherent organised method, and invite the reader to click the links if they want more detail., Ultimately the lede summarise our whole article. The thing in a nutshell.

On that note, the label "Craig Thomson affair", as the ultimate summarisation, gives half its weight to the affair/events/drama that binds various bodies such as the Health Services Union, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Labor Party, Parliament and the wider community. It's not about Thomson exclusively but the political impact, especially the impact on the hung parliament, where votes (and government itself) can depend on a single member. If Craig Thomson is declared bankrupt, or found guilty of a serious crime, he has to leave parliament, and the government would change, which is why the thing is the intense focus of both Gillard and Abott, often to the detriment of normal policy debate. We could call this the HSU affair - and maybe we should, given the likelihood of more controversy coming from that direction - but Thomson is the key as he is in parliament and the government depends on his vote, and to be frank, the salacious aspects of the allegations against him fuel the public interest. It's the few thousand dollars spent on escorts from a union credit card that hit the buttons in community discussion, not the far larger amounts of cash withdrawals, or election expenses.

While I've got your attention, Collect, why did you label this as a "silly season" affair? It's been in the public eye for over three years, it has generated prolonged public discussion, it has the potential to change the historical course of the nation, given Abbott's intentions to roll back much of Gillard's policy structure such as the carbon tax, the mining tax and the broadband network. It's more than a summer story. Not that it's summer at the moment, especially here in Canberra, where I scrape the ice off my car very morning. --Pete (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Over three years? Nah. This issue only has the current level of coverage because of the hung parliament, and that hasn't been three years yet. The ONLY reason we have an article is because the Opposition wants power, and sees getting rid of Thomson as one possible pathway to that goal. I think it's telling that you omitted the Liberal Party from your list of interested parties above. Without its interest, this would be just another possible case of misuse of union funds. Maybe in the news for a day or two (probably not even front page), and then forgotten. HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your assumptions, and I've addressed their falsity elsewhere, the affair has been front page news for three years, since early 2009, when Rudd had a comfortable majority. While some may wish the affair would disappear or be whitewashed away, the fact is that here it is, Thomson's tweets make Annabel Crabbe's phone buzz. It's not the Libs who want Thomson out of the picture, it's the working stiffs of the union movement. Heaven help the poor bloke if he ever gets sick and has to eat hospital food prepared by his ex-comrades! --Pete (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Boy, it's obvious who you think the guilty party is here. Too much opinion! Just step back a little. Probably my BIGGEST concern is the trial by media and Liberal Party that's underway. Very bad for every Australian. Think of this encyclopaedia in 50 years time. How much detail and opinion will readers then want to see? That's always a good approach. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you listen to or read Thomson's speech in Parliament? We could source the whole lot to his own statements right there. How about we work together to tell the story here in a fair, accurate and truthful manner. I'm not going to be a party to any whitewashing. As for your crystal ball, it's been about sixty years since the Petrov Affair and we've got a whole detailed article on that one that nobody is objecting to. You could help write the article, you know. How about you write a para on the tense situation in Parliament and we ask IP to write one about Thomson's speech in Parliament, which he should know intimately. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The more I see of your opinionated work here, the more you're convincing me that this article should not exist. It's just a perfect place to hang one's prejudices, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reinserted the 2009 SMH source here. It marked the beginning of the affair in the public awareness. Before that, it was a minor story, after this point, it gained wide coverage throughout Australia, which extends to the present day. --Pete (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Coöperative editing strategy

Given the sensitivity of this ongoing affair, the sometimes heated views expressed by some, and the fact that one passionate editor is unable to edit the article due to using a shared IP address as his account, how about we take things slowly, sort out wording and sources here a paragraph at a time, and uncover any issues and snares before we edit the article? If there is any support (or otherwise) for this strategy, add comments here and we'll see how we go. Otherwise, I guess we'll just edit as normal, though given the level of tension over the weekend, I'd like to at least try to get everybody working together rather than edit-warring. --Pete (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't point the finger at the IP editor at all. The article was opinionated, not NPOV and was basically rubbish - complaining about that was a good thing. The tension was created by the non neutral low quality article that existed. As for everyone working together on such a partisan political article - in my experience of wiki similar articles it won't happen - partisan and people affiliated to oppositions parties show up and human nature takes over - - You, Pete, are the user that created this article and as I have seen a couple of your edits - you are partisan in regard to this living person/issue, and have a large responsibility in all the disruption that has resulted. Youreallycan 05:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor is unable to edit the article directly, at least for a few more days. He has a keen interest and it would be unfair to deny him participation. I'm not saying that we'll get a consensus here before putting material up in the article, but at least we'll be able to identify material that is problematic before we get to the edit-warring stage. I'm not sure that I'm partisan in any of this. Wanting to see the story told accurately doesn't mean that I want the opposition to take over. I just won't support a white-wash, that's all. --Pete (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Your content creation has been derided, reported to multiple noticeboards and removed and sent to AFD - it was that bad/opinionated/POV - Youreallycan 05:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

All reliably sourced. As I've indicated, the hard part is finding balancing points of view that are well sourced and credible. I think Richo summed it up well here, when talking about the escorts. Thomson's response to this is pretty weak. --Pete (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are just not getting it - Pete - you can reliably source a biased report. - Personally I think , you are so partisan/ so opinionated that you can't see it or just don't want to. Youreallycan 06:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You may have to explain your point of view a bit more fully, please. I'm not seeing what you are getting at here. --Pete (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete, as you would expect, I agree totally with slow, cautious editing and seeking consensus before making any changes, so why on earth did you do exactly the opposite when you changed the lead three hours ago, after absolutely no discussion? I really cannot make any sense of your behaviour. (Don't try to tell us the changes were necessary. I'm sure you believed that about every similarly unilateral edit you've made in the past week.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Check the time stamps. I wasn't talking about gaining consensus before making changes, but in identifying problems before they get to the edit-war stage. Do you have anything to say about the content? --Pete (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WTF do the timestamps have to do with it. You unilaterally changed the article without any discussion at all, then 11 minutes later recommended that "we take things slowly, sort out wording and sources here a paragraph at a time, and uncover any issues and snares before we edit the article". That's not rational behaviour. Maybe you had an epiphany in those 11 minutes. Miracles do occur. And no, I have no intention of saying anything about the content in this section. That would be completely inappropriate. Again, I cannot comprehend why you would want anyone to do something so confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I made the changes to the lead and then thought, "Well shoot, we're just going to go down the same track if we edit this the regular way. Maybe a different strategy can avoid all the personal attacks we saw yesterday.". Dunno if it's an epiphany, but I thought it was reasonable and rational. --Pete (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank YRC for continuing to work on this article, despite his wish expressed elsewhere that it be deleted. It's in a poor condition now, but it can be improved. I had hoped that other editors active on the talk page would work toward improvement, but despite a day of contributions in other places, they have chosen not to do so. If the article is to be improved, then it won't improve itself. Some of the discussion has been very useful, especially on the AfD page, where editors have chosen to share their comments, and have raised a number of concerns, which I shall endeavour to address. One point that struck me was that the affair is little known outside Australia, and of course when somebody comes in cold, it's going to appear pretty devastating. I don't really expect too many people to read the full 1 100 page pdf report of FWA, but I do urge interested parties to at least thumb through it, look at the level of detail, the logic used to support the conclusions, the findings etc. I'll spend some time today working on the article, using the strategy outlined here. Comments or co-operation welcome, of course. --Pete (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gillard Government

Looking at the Gillard Government article, there is a prominent section discussing this affair, and mentioning Peter Slipper explaining the situation wrt the tight numbers in the House. I present it below and note that there has been no heated discussion on the talk page there, despite many diverse contributors working more or less harmoniously. Possibly this relevant and uncontroversial content could be used as the basis for a more detailed treatment here?

The Government's numbers in the House of Representatives were affected by the resignation of Peter Slipper from the Liberal National Party in order that he could serve as a Labor aligned independent and as Speaker of the House of Representatives; as well as by the suspension of Labor back bencher Craig Thomson from the ALP as a result of the Craig Thomson affair.

Labor MP Craig Thomson was the subject of extensive allegations brought before Fair Work Australia, concerning alleged mis-use of union funds during his time as a leader of the Labor affiliated Health Services Union (HSU), prior to his entry to Parliament. Presiding secretary of the union, Kathy Jackson, told ABC television in February 2012 that, given that the investigation had been underway since April 2009 and was unresolved by February 2012, she suspected the government had intervened to stall the inquiry. A by-election would result in which the government could lose its majority.[1] When Fair Work Australia (FWA) handed a report on the HSU alleging 181 breaches (including 76 criminal breaches) related to the union's finances to the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in April 2012, the DPP announced that it could not investigate the breaches because FWA had not provided a "Brief of Evidence". The Australian Council of Trade Unions suspended the HSU.[2] Kathy Jackson said the alleged breaches related to Thompson, and that it appeared that the FWA was trying to protect the government.[3] Julia Gillard repeated her confidence in Thompson, while the opposition leader Tony Abbott called on Gillard to expel Thompson from the government and for the Australian Federal Police to raid FWA's offices in order to be able to use the contents of the report for a brief of evidence.

Civil and criminal allegations were made against Speaker Slipper in April 2012 and he announced an intention to step aside pending conclusion of the criminal investigation. The Gillard Government initially resisted calls from the Opposition and Crossbenchers for Slipper to step aside for the duration of any civil investigations. On 29 April, Gillard announced that she wanted to dispel a "dark cloud" hanging over Parliament and wanted Labor MP Craig Thompson to suspend his membership of the Labor Party and sit on the cross-benches and for Speaker Slipper to maintain his suspension from the role of Speaker until all the completion of investigations.[4] Labor MP Anna Burke was to take up the duties of Speaker. The development left Labor with 70 seats on the floor of the House of Representatives, to the Liberals 71 - with two independents aligned to Liberal-National Coalition; Andrew Wilkie acting as a non-aligned independent; and with Slipper, Thompson, a Green and two further independents remaining Labor aligned.[5] Soon after, West Australian National, Tony Crook announced that he would sitting and voting with the Liberal-National Coaltion.[6]

After FWA's findings against Thomson were made public (alleging that he had misused $500,000 in union funds to purchase prostitution services, as well as to aid his political campaign for Parliament and for personal cash withdrawals) the MP addressed Parliament from the crossbenches, and in an emotional speech in May 2012, said that he was the victim of a conspiracy perpetrated by former colleagues and accused the media and opposition of seeking to deny him his right to the presumption of innocence.[7]

Comments, as ever, invited from those seeking improvement. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. Saying "as ever" is simply a lie. You have largely ignored comments from other editors before making unilateral changes to the article. And if you want to save this article, I suggest you stop editing now. Every edit you make in your usual style makes it more likely this will be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Excessive off topic discussion

- I have decided to not give a fuck Wikipedia is great. It has millions of reasonably well balanced articles, giving just about the right amount of detail and coverage to their topic. But there is one area it doesn't deal with well. That's those current topics, often with new material arriving fairly frequently, where somewhat obsessed editors with strong emotional involvement work incredibly hard to impose their ideas on an article. This article is a classic example. Other similar ones I've tried to influence in recent times involve several related to the current US Presidential campaign (supporters of both the major candidates think I support the other side), and the Trayvon Martin story. Eventually Wikipedia will have good articles on these topics. Right now they're full of crap. They won't be properly fixed until time and stability leads the obsessed editors to move on to something else, and some calmer, wiser heads can prevail. (Then we'll have a whole new bunch of crappy, unstable articles to deal with.) So, in the interests of my sanity, and the welfare of some other people I can do a lot more good for in the short term, I am going to implement one of Wikipedia's most useful guidelines - Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism. See you all elsewhere on the project. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The essay you mention is excellent, and as I noted earlier, hatred, selfishness and obsession do not belong here. Or indeed in anybody's hearts. Eventually we must lose all attachment to everything we hold dear and there is no getting away from that fact. However, if one edits political articles, one is going to cop a fair bit of attachment, because it is in the nature of humanity to be strongly attached to views on politics, religion and football. Everybody has a favourite team. (Mine is Fitzroy, which is kind of tragic, but I'll get over it eventually). Shouting down ones's political opponents on Wikipedia does not necessarily reflect in the real world, nor should it. We report the story, not become it. And when there is a story, we use reliable sources, we take a neutral point of view, and we discuss the issues politely, with respect for our fellow editors, who may hold different views. I personally don't mind what goes into Wikipedia, so long as the rules are followed. One or two cranks may distort an article, but get enough eyes on it and it sorts itself out. I can accept that, even if it doesn't work out the way I'd prefer. I say to myself, what a boring old world it would be if everyone had my opinions and perceptions. And how woefully managed it would be, because nobody would get their tax in on time. Thank goodness for other people! (Oh, and thank goodness for Obama - what a lovely man he is. I'm barracking for Barack.)--Pete (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Both of you stop blabbing on the talkpage your personal opinions - Youreallycan 23:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Number 4 branch finances?

In the article we have the line: The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009. and is is supposedly supported by this source,

Could those who are inserting and re-inserting please point out exactly where the source supports the statement? Perhaps attempting to change the sentence away from the passive tone would help make the problem more clear. --Pete (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Yesterday the secretary of the branch responsible for the petition hit out at Fair Work's handling of the HSU issues, describing its response to the petition as nonsensical ." From the source. Last line. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now you've experienced what HiLo48 and I have had to deal with yourself. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) PS: the preceding comment ( a response to Qwyrxian) has been moved maliciously moved around several times for the purposes of harassment. It is in the correct place as per WP:TALK, but the harasser fails to see that, in the same way the harasser failed to note what the article cited by Qwyrxian actually said. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC) PPS - relocated again. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

indeed. Let's just look at the statement, and see if the source supports it. It doesn't. It says that the members of one branch petitioned for the finances of the whole union to be investigated, not the other way round, as our article alleges.. --Pete (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's leave it your way, to keep things sweet, but may I direct you to Example 2 of WP:INDENT, which says,

If you want to reply to a comment, but another editor has already done so, just position your own text beneath that other editor's reply, at the same indentation level.

I replied to Qwyxian over an hour before you did, but it's no big deal really, except that it would be polite to work within the framework of wikipractice that smoothes our work here. Removing the comments of other users entirely, without a good reason, is very poor practice indeed. Let alone repeatedly, especially when informed of the problem. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is my final response to you, Skyring: stop your harassment. You moved my response only to annoy and provoke. I have done my best to ignore you, but when you continue lying about and defaming me in the same way you've lied about and defamed the subject of this article, your nonsense must be addressed. Firstly, you moved my comments and then added another comment in the hope I'd use the (undo) function to restore them from where you've moved them, which I did; mea culpa. Secondly, you have misrepresented the accidental removal of your comments on this page by my use of (undo) as a deliberate act of malice; wrong, my use of the (undo) function deleted your comments and I didn't know any comment had been added by you in the interim. Thirdly, you might want to look at your own formatting before being critical of mine; it's worse than a dog's breakfast. Finally, I am not responding or replying to you again in any public space, and any posts you make on my (this IP's) talk page will be deleted unread. Given your history, affiliations, and behavior I cannot assume good faith with you - so AFAIC you won't exist any more in my universe after the AIN matter is cleared up, and I suggest it stays that way. Is this clear enough? Good. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

At the top of every edit box for a talk page, there is a note saying "...Please respect the talk page guidelines..." It was placed there by the good folk at Wikipedia for the guidance of all editors, and it is certainly worth reading and reviewing by all editors, including myself. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup. There's the criticism supported. Keep on reading. What, exactly, is being criticised and who is doing it? --Pete (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

How about something like this:

In April and July 2009, members of a Victorian branch of the Health Services Union requested Fair Work Australia to investigate the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Thomson was federal secretary. Their petition was rejected by FWA on a technicality.

The way it currently reads, it sounds as if the whole union was requesting an investigation of the accounts of the Victorian branch. The above wording is almost a direct quote from paragraph seven of the source. I'm not sure this needs to be in the article at all, but let's discuss it, shall we? --Pete (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Claim is:

The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009.

The source states:

In July 2009 Fair Work Australia rejected a petition for an investigation by the Victorian-based Health Services Union (HSU) No. 4 branch on the curious grounds the national union did not technically have members and was not therefore subject to a members' petition.

Which clearly supports the exact and precise wording of the claim above. Unless, of course, you find that the word "criticised" is wrong? I think the tenor of the article is sufficiently clear for using that word - but the alternate wording would then be:

The FWA has declined to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009 on the basis that the national union did not technically have any members.

Is that your preference? Collect (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please carefully read the source wording which you supplied. It is the Victorian No. 4 branch petitioning for an investigation. Not the whole union. And what are they petitioning for? An investigation into the finances of the national office. Here's the relevant wording from the source:

The branch's petition of 268 members in June 2009 followed an April call the same year for a full investigation of the national union's financial administration between 2002 and 2007, the period when Mr Thomson was federal secretary.

FWA didn't decline to investigate the finances of the Victorian no. 4 branch, because nobody asked them to do that. They were asked to do a full investigation into the national union's finances, a different thing entirely. Apart from the criticism of FWA aspect, which isn't disputed, your preferred version has it backwards. --Pete (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW you would absolutely accept:

"The FWA refused a petition to investigate general union finances made by a petition of union members on the grounds that the national union itself has no members"

Correct? Eliding the "branch #4" part entirely? (I see an ambiguity in the source wording - but certainly not enough to allow for wholesale excision of the claim). Collect (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the branch needs to be mentioned, because otherwise it's confusing to say that union members petitioned but the union had no members. How does that work? I have no objection to this information being included, all I ask is that our source back up what we say. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The rationale appears to be that branches of the union have no standing with regard to the national union - the fact that it was branch 4 (Medical Scientists Association of Victoria) made no difference in the rationale tendered - which appears to be the gist of the claim. So we are left with the version I present above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea seems to be, as best I understand it, to present the many and varied sources of information available, to those seeking information and understanding and we call the result an encyclopaedia. How do you think the average reader would react to your wording, and how would they see it as relating to the subject of this article? I think that they would say that we dropped the ball in delivering good and relevant information. -Pete (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Well -- as a reader I would have zero idea as to why "branch 4" is an important piece of information -- perhaps you can tell me why it is important that "branch 4" was the source as opposed to, say, "branch 2"? Can you tell me whether "branch 2" would be more or less important to the reader? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As you recall, I wanted the statement removed, especially when it erroneously told the reader that it was that specific branch's finances which were being investigated, a version you and others defended. The story here, such as it is, is that a branch petitioned FWA to investigate the national union's finances during the specific period that Thomson was federal secretary, ending two years before the petition made to FWA. The criticism of FWA is that they rejected this call on a technicality based on a quirk of the structure of the union. --21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to simply accept the WP:CONSENSUS that the claim made is supported by the reliable source? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't support any statement that is wrong, confusing or misleading. Nor should you. I've put forward my preferred wording above - to what, precisely, do you take exception? --Pete (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS and recognize that tendentious refusal to accept the consensus is quite likely to have an unfavourable result. Cheers. I presented wording saimed at precisely meeting your concerns, and you seem to reject it out of hand - which is not how Wikipedia works. Collect (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. It needs more tinkering and I'm happy to work on that with you. The current wording is, however, unsupported by the source, as discussed. Perhaps you'd like to replace it with your version which is accurate but opaque? --Pete (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, it appears the quote was moved and changed a little after I initially added it, but it does need correction. The quote presently says "The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU No.4 Branch following a petition by HSU members in July 2009." I would suggest that it is changed to the following: "The FWA investigation has been criticised for failing to investigate the finances of the HSU following a petition by HSU No.4 Branch members in July 2009" (changes in bold). The cited news article does state that members of the No.4 Branch requested an investigation, but FWA knocked it on the head, and then the No.4 chap referred to the reasons for refusing an investigation as "nonsensical". What do you and Qwyrxian think about this re-wording as proposed? One21dot216dot (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I support your wording in the previous comment. --Pete (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling for more eyes on this section here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics as a first step to sorting this out. I'd also like to add in more criticism of FWA, as supported by articles like this one. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomson's claims against Jeff Jackson

Looking at this statement in the article, In his speech to the House of Representatives on 21 May 2012 Thomson said that Jeff Jackson—a former HSU executive member and the former husband of HSU National Secretary Kathy Jackson—was responsible for the spending on prostitutes., supposedly supported by this source, I invite editors to search the document for the name "Jeff Jackson". It does not come up, because Thomson never made this claim in his speech to parliament. He hinted at it earlier, but never made the claim directly, even under Parliamentary privilege. I'm removing this as per BLP. --Pete (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Live with it. I suspect this article will, in fact, be deleted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It remains a BLP violation, and as it is unsourced, it goes. Please use the established procedures for resolving this matter, and you are invited to contribute at WP:BLPN#Craig Thomson affair. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Onedot, for your revised wording, which is supported by the sources. i make two points:

1. The allegations that Jackson used union funds for escorts are sourced, but not Thomson's claim that it was Jackson who used Thomson's union credit card.
2. FWA did not say that Jackson repaid money to the HSU for spending on escorts. The sources given don't support this statement. In fact, that was Thomson's insinuation, and FWA rejected it, as noted two paragraphs after. --Pete (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Report from the Australian Electoral Commission

The AEC Report has been added to the article. It makes interesting reading (22 pages in PDF) and concentrates on Craig Thomson's election-related spending in Dobell. It also tears many of the 'findings' in the FWA report apart. For example, the two staff employed by Thomson which the FWA report claimed were solely employed for the election were in fact employed before Thomson was even per-selected for the seat of Dobell. One21dot216dot (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Could you find a media summary and use that as a source for a short mention in the appropriate place, please? While having links to primary sources is extremely useful, we can't just provide a compendium of links and let readers wade through the often lengthy reports. We need a super condensed executive summary that covers the main points. --Pete (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Scope of article

Given the renaming of this article, I'd like to start discussion on what topics should be included, and what sources we can use. The FWA report made findings against three officers or ex-officers of the HSU:

• Craig Thomson
• Kathy Jackson
• Michael Williamson

We should have sections describing the history and findings against each of these three. Thomson has attracted the most media coverage, due to his vote in Parliament being critical to the current government, and the most serious allegations were made against him. However, given the ongoing inquiries, court action, police rates and so on, the other two are likely to need more space here as time goes by. Quoting an ABC report of a few hours ago: This is unlikely to be the last we hear of the Health Services Union. There are two police investigations underway; there may well be civil action, and then there's the endless stream of damaging documents that pours out from all sides. Kathy Jackson unleashed hell when she started to pursue Craig Thomson. Along the way the reputations of all unions, Fair Work Australia and the Gillard Government took a hit and there's no doubt that part of the legacy of this affair is an emboldened Coalition, pondering a far-reaching inquiry into the labour movement if it's returned to power.[8][9] --Pete (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we should have sections describing the claims relating to each three. Not history. Not reams and reams of crap. I suspect that even after info about the other people is added, the article should be shorter than it is now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about reams and reams of crap, just when did Crikey become a reliable source? --03:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bank on the thing becoming too much shorter now, once the existing inquiries and other branches are added, nor at any time in the future! Onedot has his head down and is going for it. I think we'll end up with a balanced and coherent article, so long as we two can work together, get a few other eyes on it now and then. But honestly, I can't see it getting any shorter. The HSU saga could easily fill a book as it is. --Pete (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Then write a book. Don't try to turn an encyclopedia article, which should be a broad overview of only the most salient facts, into a retelling of every little detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Books will be written about this - I'm just amused at the notion that the HSU thing could be summed up in a few paragraphs. The Jackson-Thomson-Williamson dynamic is a complex one, and it's good to see Onedot putting some work into it. --08:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Despite the existence of surveys of the topic, Skyring/Pete continues to assert original research in the form of proposed WEIGHTings that bear no resemblance to reliable sources' overviews. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Such as...? --Pete (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You've cited them before, go look through your edits and editing plan, read WP:WEIGHT and base your weighting on the secondary sources that credibly summarise the entire incident. Come back with a weighting plan with footnotes. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No offence, but I'm not a mind reader. If you have something in mind, trot it out. I've referred to the FWA report, which divides its findings amongst three individuals, and Onedot, bless his heart, is working on other reports, naming others. We can work out relative involvements in the various reports, but I suggest that notability would be generally based on amount of good mainstream media coverage. No matter how you cut it, Thomson's not a bit player in this affair. --Pete (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't give half a shit for parliamentary politics, but I do care about weight and synth. Weighting this article based on your impressions of reports (primary sources) is synth and coatracking. Go find the media's high level summaries and weight and structure out of those. This has been repeatedly explained to the editors deeply involved in the article, and I'm seeing sections with Expand templates on them, and not a single source indicating that the section should exist at all. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No me neither and I agree with your comment - please either add some content to the sections or remove the template/s. - Youreallycan 15:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Remove the sections, perhaps? I added the Michael Williamson one, so I'll work on that. Fifelfoo, did you have any particular media high-level summary in mind? Structuring our article on a media article is a new one on me, and if you could point out previous examples where this has worked successfully, I'd be obliged for your help. There are any number of media articles about the affair(s) along the lines of this one and they all say much the same thing. --Pete (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Staff (20120515) "The HSU: anatomy of a Labor nightmare" ABC News [10] provides an analytical summary as of May. By using the sections that are not quotes or videos, the ABC's structuring and weighting of the issue can be used. WEIGHTing according to "whole of issue" coverage in reliable sources is basic wikipedia policy, it avoids SYNTHesis and COATRACKing; because we are relying on another's evaluation of the relative importance of different topics. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson's role in the affair

Given that 150 out of 180 findings of the FWA report relate to Craig Thomson, a notable figure in his own right, being an MP and all, I question this removal of his photograph, citing BLP concerns. Perhaps these concerns could be more fully expressed by the editor? Wikipedia operates on a Bold Revert Discuss cycle, and rather than edit-war over bold changes, if one is reverted, we then discuss it and seek consensus. A tried and effective procedure. --Pete (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC).

He has been indicted on ... nothing. Tried on ... nothing. Convicted of ... nothing. Placing his picture here when no formal charges have been leveled in any court at all is a WP:BLP abuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is nonsense. We can and do have articles on scandals that have never gone to any court, and we have images of the major participants. This article went to BLPN, attracted no criticism, and nobody said a word about the photograph. The reliable sources we use all have photographs of Thomson. He's on the front page and heading up the news bulletins. Please state the exact BLP provision upon which you level your charge of abuse. --Pete (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Craig Thompson is scarcely an important person for purposes of saying anything more than a rreport was issued - placing his picture here would be an UNDUE emphasis on the report, where it is clear the focus of this new article is not on Thompson. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And what crime did our article ever accuse Thomson of committing? He is not so accused n the Fair Work Australia report. Can you please outline the exact basis of your concern? --Pete (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Placing his picture here gives stronger weight to the report than it warrants, unless you wish to imply Thompson had done ssomething wwrong. And this talk page reinforces the thought that this is the aim of having his picture in this article - others do not seem to think it would help the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomson is the main subject of a report by the government body Fair Work Australia. It made numerous findings that he had breached union rules, lied to the inquiry and so on. That is wrongdoing, but falling short of criminal activity. It is not, for example, a crime to spend union funds on personal pleasures. The scandal is major and ongoing. Naturally there are those who wish to push one political view or another, and the union itself is full of factions and conflict. The government has now dismissed the union leadership and taken over administration of its affairs.[11][12] You have taken the trouble to involve yourself in this article and you have made many claims about it, few of which stand up to scrutiny. I get the feeling that you have not read any of the numerous sources provided. I don't mind if someone who is not Australian is unaware of the details, I don't follow the various political scandals that rise in other nations, but we have detailed articles on them. What's different here, and why precisely are you attempting to censor a major story? --Pete (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No response. Let me put it another way. The HSU was suspended from membership of the ACTU, and the government instigated Federal Court action to remove the executive, replacing them with an administrator recently appointed. Given these facts, we need to explain why this occurred, and we cannot do this by saying that there was no perception of corruption or nepotism. It would be like writing an article about the colour of the sky and giving equal weight to all colours. In such a circumstance, giving weight to the colour Blue is not WP:UNDUE. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent talk page removals

Recently there has been some addition, removal and restoration of a 34,000 byte extract from an official report about this affair. Getting into an edit war is not desirable. (There is enough to fight about already). Please consider whether a Wikipedia editor could summarize the material here instead. It is not completely clear whether BLP or copyright is decisive on including the 34,000 bytes here on the talk page, but if anyone considers it super-important that the material should be included, consider opening a thread at ANI to get consensus for your view. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention and input Ed - Youreallycan 16:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is puzzling. The edit, which must have taken Onedot quite a lot of effort, was large, but listed the findings of the Fair Work Australia report into the HSU in relation to Craig Thomson. I think it was quite rude to remove it without discussion, as per Onedot's suggestion at the beginning of the section. The material is pertinent to the article, and I guess that Collect, as seems to be his habit, didn't read it or relate it to other documents, also unread. He alleges WP:UNDUE, saying there is no balancing material. Collect has previously alleged that editors are asserting that Craig Thomson has engaged in some sort of criminal activity, when in fact the findings of the FWA say no such thing. Just what sort of balancing material is there, in any case? We cannot create stuff out of thin air. The situation is that Thomson has been found by the government agency tasked with union supervision to have breached various union rules, spending money on escorts, election campaigns and so on. The evidence is laid out in the report, and nobody, not even Thomson, has produced any evidence to the contrary. In his hour-long speech to Parliament two weeks after the release of the report, Thomson denied none of the findings, but suggested that he was framed. "It could have been someone else," is the gist of his defence and "I have many enemies." Indeed.

Now, that is my take on the matter, and whether the material is restored or not, it remains available in past revisions of this page. The other subject that concerns me, and given the enormous amount of work that Onedot put into the edit, may be found here. --Pete (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Collect removed the material I added, citing WP:UNDUE. As the editor who added the material at issue, I accept Collect's call on removing it without any argument. My purpose in adding the material as a table in the first place was to assist editors in the identification of the issues of the National Office FWA report, and then discuss on this talk page how many of these FWA 'findings' were annulled by the subsequent AEC report, with the objective of putting suitable wording into the article. Ed, the problem with some of the partisan editors summarising the material here so far has been they have gotten it horribly wrong, since they've presumed that the 156 'findings' are all separate matters or criminal offences - and when the 'findings' are displayed as a table, it's clear they're not. Also, the partisan editors want this article to be their Craig Thomson Hate Page, and I believe that is something which must be avoided. The source of the table's data was the FWA National Office report which comes in at about 1,100 pages; the table was inserted as an intended aid to discussion to avoid circular arguments, not to provoke another edit war. I'm happy to be guided by experienced non-partisan editors such as Collect and Youreallycan, and if they pull something out, it's for a damned good policy reason and I'll support it when they do - even if what they remove is my contribution. Ed, I hope this may clear this issue up. One21dot216dot (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As noted above - before the table was posted - there aren't any criminal matters contemplated. The election expenses were for Thomson to be elected, but the general election campaign was a matter of union harmony throughout Australia, and I'm happy with the AEC response, which should be included as a matter of balance. Various unions targeted various seats or aspects of the 2007 campaign, and that seemed to work well as an issue for the ACTU as a whole, of which the HSU was then a part. I don't know about YRC, but Collect's "non-partisan" response seems to be more ignorance of the issues than anything else! --Pete (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Michael Williamson

The sources are pretty damning on Williamson. He was suspended in October 2011 and sacked by the Federal Court this month. A Federal Court judge has sacked the leaders of the allegedly corrupt Health Services Union East branch and ordered its 50,000 members to be split up into separate NSW and Victorian branches.[13] The union has been dumped from the ACTU, and Williamson has been removed from a swag of government boards - all according to the sources. I quote one paragraph from an ABC report It draws attention to a number of companies that are alleged to provide services to the union at inflated rates or for dubious services, including IT company United Edge - which has suspended union general secretary Michael Williamson as its director.[14]. If there are any reliable sources that are saying that IT Edge was merely providing IT services in a straightforward manner, please supply them. --Pete (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

All HSU officials were dismissed per Brown v Health Services Union, [2012] FCA 644

All HSU officials were dismissed by Justice Flick, per above. It is UNDUE to single out any one person. One21dot216dot (talk) 05:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I note you inserted section headings for the other officials. i presume that you also intended to add text to them, in which their own corresponding dismissals would duly be mentioned. I added the Michael Williamson heading and when it was tagged as needing something to go with the heading, I felt it my duty to add some reliably sourced text. I look on this article as a coöperative effort. --Pete (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have included a note - in the HSU section - to that effect, providing a link to The Australian's story, rather than the primary source of the court judgement. I don't think we need include a mention of every official removed, but Williamson and Jackson most definitely. --Pete (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Prime Minister's public support for Craig Thomson

In the section headed "Australian Council of Trade Unions", we have the following statement,During Question Time on 16 August 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was asked if her confidence in Craig Thomson was based on a thorough investigation of his credibility. She replied, "I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell. I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come", supported by this newspaper article. As the Prime Minister is not a member of the ACTU and was not making her statement in any connection with the ACTU, I shall move it to a more appropriate spot within the "Craig Thomson" section. Or possibly create a new section on the Prime Minister's public statements on the affair, as she made another comment at a recent ACTU Congress, commenting on the Health Services Union, rather than any individual. --Pete (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Why i just reverted Skyring

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not want a day by day account ("On May 2, police raided..."). We do not need random comments made by politicians. Just because something can be cited does not mean it belongs in the article. Focus only on the broad, historical picture, not the tiny details. Cut out the POV language like "overwhelmingly". If the problem is that we're too close to the event so everything seems super important, than just wait until we have historical perspective. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you could link to some wikipolicy and give specific examples, that would be helpful to me. We cover other ongoing events, such as 2012 Indonesian boat disaster, where it is also difficult to find any positive aspects. The HSU saga has been going for three years in the public eye and reaches back to 2002. How much longer is needed to gain historical perspective? --Pete (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I cited the policies in my edit summary: WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE) and WP:NOT. And I'm not saying we need to find positive balancing material--that's not what WP:NPOV means. What I'm saying is that we do not cover every single aspect of this, as you yourself point out, three year saga. If I give you the most extreme amount of WP:AGF, I'd have to assume that you've misunderstood WP:V, and think that anything that can be verified must be included, when, in fact verification is the minimum criteria, and merely being verified is not enough for inclusion. Please note that my willingness to assume good faith is being stretched mighty thin, however. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My intention is to tell the story, for the benefit of readers who come seeking information, as to why the union was ejected from the ACTU and placed into administration. This is an unusual occurrence. Perhaps we can compromise, by including only the highlights. I suggest that the overwhelming vote by the ACTU to eject the HSU is a highlight. To address your other points, it's not that we need to include every little detail - it's rather that our story is now very much different to that being told by mainstream media - the reliable sources we use for support. A reader comparing our story with that supplied in our sources would be entitled to conclude that Wikipedians have their heads up their bums and are missing the main points. Or the story is being censored. --Pete (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, Qwyrxian. I'm happy for you to take out all the POV peat that's been shovelled into the article. One21dot216dot (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Date formats

The last thing i want to do is to edit-war over date formats, so I assume that the insertion and land later reinstatement of American-format dates were mistakes? This is an article with strong national ties to an Australian topic, and international-format dates are used here. That's day-month-year, as indicated by the template heading the article. If anyone is unclear about this, WP:MOSDATE is the place to find answers. --Pete (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have removed three templates and ....

made some edits to improve the article - and attempted to get a clear thread running through it - The removal of excessive templates allow more Internet users to read the article - I will keep an eye on the article over the next few days to see how it develops - if a return to the previous low standard of neutrality returns I will look to return the templates to assist article improvident - thanks - Youreallycan 22:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your bold insertion of Brad Norrinton into this affair is an interesting move. I was previously unaware that he was a player. Could you explain your reasoning for this, please? --Pete (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Attribution - I added a internal to him basically to expose his low notability/lack of notability as an opinionated article of his was citing a large section of content - - and to allow informed users like yourself from the locality to create a new article - Youreallycan 22:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds rather pointy to me. You might seek Onedot's opinion on this - I believe he inserted the material. --Pete (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the content in the article is pointy imo - I have done a quick policy clean up/removal of any uncited and NPOV violating content - as is one of my wiki works- Youreallycan 23:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits look fine to me, apart from the Norrinton thing. Thanks for the good work. Onedot's not visible at the moment; I might look into finding a better source for his material there. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked more at the Norrington content/citation and removed the section - Youreallycan 23:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Vote by ACTU

I've added the suspension by the ACTU to suspend the HSU. This is a rare and significant event, a direct result of the negative media coverage occasioned by the affair, reflecting poorly on the union movement as a whole, as stated in the source. I've described the vote as "overwhelming" because it was 1797-103 in favour of suspension. That's overwhelming in anybody's language. It's like saying that Barack Obama winning every state but Utah is an overwhelming victory. Or that a cup of tea with one teaspoon of tea and eighteen teaspoons of sugar is overwhelmingly sweet. I think it's a valid use especially as the ACTUsaid they were sending a message against corruption. We can discuss the exact wording if need be. Devastating, solid, significant? I'm not welded to any one term to describe the vote, but that's the word used in the source and it seems appropriate. --Pete (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Overwhleming is an opinion, as are devastating, solid, and significant. Newspapers can and should use such language. Wikipedia cannot. No adjective belongs there. As I said before, perhaps you need to re-read WP:NPOV. The only way such an adjective would be appropriate would be if you said, "Expert X described the vote as 'overwhelmingly in favor of...'" or whatever the actual quote said. The actual paragraph, though, seems fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read WP:NPOV several times and can't find the section on adjectival use. Battles are often described in adjectival terms - an example is the Battle of Waterloo, which is described as a "Decisive Coalition victory". Likewise votes are frequently described as "overwhelming". The phrase "Pennsylvania overwhelmingly voted for the Republican nominee..." is used several times in connection with presidential elections.[15]. The similar phrase "voted overwhelmingly" is even more common, and on checking the articles relating to votes, very few of them are quite so one-sided as the ballot of the ACTU. The closest I can find is on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, where in the second paragraph an "overwhelming vote" of 170-21 is taken, which is only 89% support, in contrast to the 94.6% vote of the ACTU. Other, far lower, levels are described as "overwhelming", for example United States presidential election in Pennsylvania, 1984, where the support for Reagan was 53% over Mondale's 46% (with a few minor candidates scrambling for the remaining decimal points). Having regard to the 16 000 Wikipedia articles that contain the adjective you say has no place in Wikipedia, I must, with the greatest respect, suggest that both of us could usefully undertake more research. --Pete (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And some of those search results may be in quotations. WP:NPOV is clear--no editorializing. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not important. What is important is the ACTU booting out a union, especially one that put so many resources into the 2007 election campaign for them. The message is clear. What I'd really like to do now is to make some constructive edits. Over the years I've taken some flak - and rightly so - for discussing stuff, maybe reverting stuff I don't like, but not actually providing content. It's easy to criticise, easy to deflect criticism, but in the end we're here to tell people what's what and where to find information. We don't do that by sniping on talk pages. Thanks for your input. --Pete (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I still don't think it's important, but I've added in a footnote to make it clear about the numbers. Australia's peak union body clearly wanted to send a strong message! --Pete (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me state my perception of the situation. We are discussing the inclusion of the word "overwhelming" to describe a remarkably lopsided vote. I have given my personal opinion and provided material in direct support. Those wishing that the word not be included have given their personal opinion and then given it again. There is apparently no specific material in support. I am therefore persuaded that my view is the correct one here, and I may push the button to test this in a wider forum, before moving on to the next point, which I see involves date formats, another matter where I am confident in my view. I shall now wait a short time for responses. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"I shall now wait a short time for responses." - is not how objections work on this project - have you got citations supporting your desired wording? Users object to your desired addion - waiting a short time will get you reverted and reported - ow, no one has commented yet so I can replace my disputed desired addition - no - lol - Youreallycan 20:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect in your assumption. I think that Dispute resolution noticeboard is the appropriate "place to resolve small content disputes.". It is the wider forum I mentioned above. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The first step is thorough discussion here. DRN is for general stuff -- the specialised BLP/N and RS/N boards are better 99 times out of 100. BTW, "overwhelming" is the precise sort of adjective which requires a source, and not an editor's opinion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a precise quotation from the source, as stated in discussion above. Could I get you to read both, please? --Pete (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is it quoting? - If its a quote it needs to be presented as one and attributed as one - not presented as it fact in wiki voice as you were doing, and continue to desire - Youreallycan 21:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Skyring, if you really still think you're right, I'll take the question to WP:NPOVN. Minor discussion over a single word is not appropriate for WP:DRN. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My position is as stated. The way to persuade me is to provide material in support of your personal opinion. Restating the same view is therefore ineffective. --Pete (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway - your desired addition is opposed by multiple users so please don't replace it without further discussion and WP:Consensus - thanks - Youreallycan 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for outside opinions at WP:NPOVN. The thread is at WP:NPOVN#Use of the word "overwhelmingly". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Adjectives and adverbs are best used sparingly - and sourced. Collect (talk) 23:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You do have a RS for the word "overwhelmingly" right here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-05/actu-suspends-health-services-union/3935476

See the lead for that article: "The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has voted overwhelmingly to suspend the beleaguered Health Services Union (HSU) from its ranks." as well as two quotes within the article. "ACTU president Ged Kearney says the vote is a 'very grave and serious step" that had been "overwhelmingly supported by the majority of the executive'." and "This is a clear statement by the ACTU executive overwhelmingly endorsing the proposal of the officers that there is zero tolerance for corruption, that we have high standards in the administration of unions." that quote is from ACTU national secretary Jeff Lawrence.

Take your pick on which one you want to attribute "overwhelmingly" to. -- Avanu (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, here's another one, 7News Australia says overwhelmingly in the first sentence of the news story http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=UtL2DrvA5u8 -- Avanu (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still seeing some grumbling from the non-Australian editors Collect, YRC and Q. I'm confident about pressing this point, but it's not an important one in my eyes, and I feel really bad about forcing editors who believe something is important to accept an edit they don't support in their hearts. I don't know why it matters to you guys, but I'm not going to be around for a while, so you're welcome to work it out between yourselves. The article still needs a lot of work, but I'm sure that others will step up to the plate, this being Wikipedia. It's been grand entertainment, but I've got to do some grown-up stuff involving elderly parents now. Be kind to Onedot, please. He's probably the only editor here who truly feels attached to his edits, bless his heart. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The ABC reports on gross misuse of HSU funds by Jeff and Kathy Jackson

Jacksons at centre of 'disturbing' HSU allegations Of particular interest are the facts that

• Kathy Jackson employed the sons of her boyfriend and FWA supremo, Michael Lawler, on over-inflated salaries
• An HSU Victorian No.1 Branch credit card was used for paying for prostitutes - which has nothing to do with Craig Thomson but plenty to do with Jeff Jackson
• large payments from HSU's Victoria Health Professionals branch to Neranto Consulting (of which both the Jacksons were listed as directors)

Most of this material was sourced from Independent Australia, which the ABC considers to be a reliable source. One21dot216dot (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this material is pertinent. There's more to this thing than Thomson, and Kathy Jackson certainly has a major role. However, Independent Australia isn't likely to be useful for a reliable source any time soon. The ABC and other media outlets are. We go with what we have, and if you want to add good well-sourced material about the Jacksons, I'm going to be cheering you on. --Pete (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

ABC has simply repeated claims by Independent Australia's blog written by Peter Wicks, a failed Labor candidate. ABC makes no inference as to the reliability of the documents in question. Looking at these documents they fail to actually prove anything because they don't have letterheads on them(so could be invoices from anyone) and lack even invoice numbers(why?). The school one is especially stupid, I mean Kathy Jackson is paying for the uniforms for pre-school teachers, really? I mean the only one that looked slightly legible was the invoices from Jeff and Kathy's company back in the late 1990's to a company of the HSU for consultancy. Don't know what position if any Kathy had in the late 1990's at the HSU, so it's kind of moot unless running your own business is illegal according to Peter Wicks.Crocodile2009 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you want to use a specific article from Independent Australia for a specific claim, that it be taken to WP:RS/N properly this time to inquire into the issue (last time was a fiasco where people refused to supply sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 124#mytalk.com.au (a division of Fairfax Media) and 'Independent Australia' (http://www.independentaustralia.net/) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Strike Force Carnarvon

The investigation by the NSW police into one aspect of corruption within the HSU is titled "Strike Force Carnarvon", and the investigation has conducted several high-profile raids on union premises and suppliers. This has been an ongoing story since September 2011, and has been the focus of numerous media stories. This is why the union was suspended by the ACTU and its officers removed by Federal Court action. While I am sensitive to the BLP concerns here, this article needs at least a brief mention of SFC to put the affair in context. --Pete (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Temby Report

Looking at the release of the Temby Report into financial administration with the HSU, it is clear that a lot more useful material is available to document the questionable management of the union and the behaviour of high officials. The ABC report is here and the SMH report here. --Pete (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A name change?

Given that the two main players in this affair have either been found guilty or admitted to crimes, I've removed the "alleged" from the lead. This thing isn't really about expenses, it's about rorting. Maybe we can change the name to something more relevant.

We've just had Parliament issue a bipartisan apology over Thomson's crimes. It's about time that some people accept that this isn't just some minor bubble in the news cycle. --Pete (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)