Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 18 November 2009

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Australia: Adelaide / Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

Nick Xenophon is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Rigged On Dit election - yawn

Is that - or anything else in the rabble which is student union politics - really worthy of inclusion? He was 17 years old! Should we also mention how many detentions he got in school? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

His election to the position was rigged by Young Liberals and is cited. Of course it's worthy of inclusion. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes it worthy? My argument is that something silly someone does when they are 17 is NN. Why do you think it's notable? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Australian found it noteable enough for the majority of an article to be about it. I'll point out with a smile that nobody objected to him being the editor of On Dit when some contributor added it ages ago. You didn't raise the issue then. So you have one of two choices - you take issue with the inclusion of his editorship as well as the rigging as non noteable despite not having raised objection earlier - or - you take issue with the rigging but believe it is still ok to mention On Dit. Which one? Timeshift (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not notable either way. Some On Dit eds bragged that they used the compulsory student union fees on buying illicit drugs and porn magazines. As for "tricking" people, that is normal in student politics. Your wording makes that it sound as though they beat up the opposition or registered dead people or something. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, just Young Liberals voting on behalf of others on the roll. And I could refer to the citation that Xenophon confessed to this, but it's all the same to you isn't it. For once just try to be an unbiased admin... just once. Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I second those comments about all sorts of rubbish happening in student politics.

I had no problem with On Dit editor being there because it was a colourless couple of words. I hardly noticed it. But now the emphasis is all wrong - it's all about the rigged election. We could balance it by saying how Xenophon says he knew nothing (which I doubt) and regretted the incident (which I believe), or we could shorten it to something like "in a controversial election" (with the ref for further reading for anyone who cares). But as it stands, the balance is wrong. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"We could balance it by saying how Xenophon says he knew nothing (which I doubt) and regretted the incident (which I believe)" - doubt and believe? Is this WP:OR? After what you've already said above? Incredible. Reword it, but it's a fascinating goalpost shift from complete exclusion. Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously "doubt"/"believe" are my personal opinions and don't go in the article. My point is that you've got to put in so much detail to present it fairly that it ends up taking a disproportionate part of the article, so far better is to just say there was controversy and let the reader read the ref if they care about it. As for "goalpost shift", I prefer to call it compromise :) Peter Ballard (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for a factual compromise. It seems however, predictably, that Blnguyen won't take to any mention of a Young Lib rigged election whatsoever. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First, can I ask anyone who deletes information to bring the information to the talk page. When the subject matter is deleted from the article, it makes it harder to match up the references to what is being discussed on the talk page. Thanks. /// On the contest rigging incident, on what is said in The Australian article, the relevance of the incident is beyond dispute. In the article, Julian Glynn cites the incident as the moment Xenophon decided the Liberals were not for him. MP Michael O'Brien said the incident was an early lesson in politics for Xenophon. The journalist calls the incident a turning point. Xenophon says the incident made him realise politics was not for him. It seems the Young Liberal aspect is necessary to get the context. Editors here may call the incident trivial, but the quotes in the article show it is not. --Lester 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is suitable and has been added, as only one contributor argues full exclusion from the article:

In 1977 while at University he was for a period a member of the Young Liberals, and secured the editorship of the student newspaper On Dit, a position Xenophon gained via the rigging of a vote recount by Young Liberals, citing his published confession on June 25, 1978 explaining his regrets and lack of knowledge over the incident.

I can't see how anyone would take issue with that, unless they wanted to keep the entire incident out alltogether, but I wonder why anyone would want to do that...? Let's just go over what the article says:

Xenophon would... blow the whistle on what he breathlessly called "one of the biggest scandals" going: the rigging of the student vote that had delivered him his first position of prominence.

To Xenophon's credit, he doesn't try to shy away from the vote rigging episode. In fact, he went out of his way to produce the dog-eared copy of On Dit containing his published confession on June 25, 1978. "It sort of makes me cringe reading it," he explains. "You know, with the writing style and what happened and all the rest of it." The episode was nevertheless a turning point: "When it came to the crunch I realised machine politics wasn't for me."

On initial results, Xenophon came up a handful of votes short of clinching the On Dit role. A recount was ordered, which he won by four votes. Over drinks at the uni bar, he learned that ballot papers had been forged in his favour.

So is the proposed/added wording ok? If not what needs changing. Exclusion of it quite simply isn't an option here, i'm sure none of us want to take the RfC route etc. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The shorter mention appears suitable. I agree it shouldn't hog the article, but it does seem to have been an important milestone in his political development. Might want to make the wording a little clearer though... with "gained" where it is it sounds like *he* rigged the vote. Oh, and he was either 18 or 19 when this took place, in response to claims at the top of this section - not that it makes much difference, but it's good to have the right facts in front of us :) Orderinchaos 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded, also mentioned it was rigged on the recount, as he initially fell short. Also, on a side note, the article suffers from WP:RECENTISM as it is - only a few lines in Pre-political life. So perhaps ballooning would be a good thing. Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos: according to the ref, the vote was held in 1976 when he was 17. Anyway, the paragraph (before the edit I just did) was a bit better, but to my mind there's still too much detail (do we really need the date of his "confession"?). I've had a go at editing it myself (see diff here ), to remove what I see as unnecessary detail, and mention the effect on Xenophon. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Archive 1: "...Now take your WP:OR and WP:SOAP elsewhere thanks. Timeshift (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)"

I seriously doubt that the Independent Weekly would print that some of his policies are very close to those of the Family First party, if there were not some truth to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.139.174 (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon and Fielding are quite different. Xenophon supports in full the government changes to LGBT rights - Fielding does not and continues not to give his support to it. Xenophon has been reported in the media as centrist to left of centre, and is far more accommodating to government legislation in unaltered or amended form - Fielding has opposed almost everything. But this does not relate to article improvement - what point are you trying to make? Timeshift (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

--well for example, like Family First, he has been known to be pro-censorship. For example the time when he wanted to ban (or give an R-rating to) a Tamagotchi "slot" game (referred to on the Tamagotchi Misplaced Pages page), and his very recent comments to the ABC(as a senator) supporting the lack of an R rating for video games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.117.172 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well almost no two politicians have polar opposite opinions. They may share some ground in some areas but not others. But to say the two share a similar overall ideology is just plain wrong. Timeshift (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article, the point is that some of his success in state and federal elections can be attributed to downplay of some of his policies, and this is relevant to the article, if the purpose of Misplaced Pages articles is to increase peoples' knowledge of a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.180.67 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I was only trying to say that their ideology is very similar in certain policy areas, not overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.180.67 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what I feel you are doing is WP:SOAPBOXing. I would struggle to see how criticising him in such a way helps the encyclopedia. It mentions he is big on publicity stunts. Criticising the way he supports or opposes policies would be very tricky when maintaining WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and other such guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition to this information. I don't have a problem with the addition per se (that he didn't know it was rigged by Young Liberals), however it needs to be counterbalanced that he found out about it straight after the election, and didn't reveal it until his term as editor was up. Again, this information really should be expanded, but it seems that certain people want it as small and concise as possible, after they lost out getting it completely removed. Suggestions? Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mention on Slot machine

Just a heads up that i've made a mention of No Pokies at http://en.wikipedia.org/Slot_machine#Australia as Xenophon's political success and No Pokies platform make it noteworthy. Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Above the line votes split 50-50?

Can this be clarified? If I voted for ticket 1, I voted Grn-Dem-FFP-ALP-Lib, if I voted for ticket 2, I voted FFP-Grn-Dem-Lib-ALP. How does it get split 50-50? Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"If you place the single figure 1 in one of the boxes above the line for the party or group of your choice, you will have voted according to the VOTING TICKET(S) lodged by your party or group as set out in this booklet. Where a party, group or candidate has lodged 2 or 3 VOTING TICKETS, the total number of group ticket votes received by that group or candidate will be distributed evenly in accordance with those voting tickets."

- from AEC document http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/elections/2007/gvt/SA_2007_gvt.pdf - Peter Ballard (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What the? That's crazy! So if someone voted above the line, their vote was evenly distributed? How deceptive! Glad I didn't vote ATL (not that I voted Xen 1, I put him 2 with SHY 1). Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting above the line means trusting the politician or party with your preferences. Anyone who is stupid enough to do that has no right to complain, IMHO. But Xenophon, in his defence, did publicly announced that he was doing a split. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Its introduction was driven by the two major parties to make it harder for people to vote for independents, (their "justification" was to reduce the number of informal votes - I wonder if it has?), because you can only vote above the line for "Groups", and independents are individuals and hence "ungrouped". I share Peter's opinion about trusting politicians! However, I believe that well over 90% of the population actually do vote above the line ... Ho hum. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit harsh: it doesn't make it harder to vote for independents who can find a running mate. Difficulty in Senate voting was an issue, and informal votes did go down. BUT it removes the voter's control over their preferences if they're stupid enough to vote above the line. Also, I don't think people in the 1980's anticipated the new viable parties which exist today, and the dodgy preference deals which arise because some of these parties (like Family First) don't fall neatly into the traditional left/right spectrum. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Fielding wouldn't have been elected if Australia didn't use ATL. Timeshift (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the last half of my reply. There were all sorts of varied parties in the 80s too. It was dumb legislation in the 80s too. As for Fielding... you're probably right, but the Labor preferences had to go somewhere. Maybe some Labor voters don't like their preferences going to the Greens. What is for certain is that voters should choose, not the parties. As least with how-to-vote cards the process is transparent. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What would give you that impression? 75-80% of Greens votes preference Labor over the coalition, 60-65% of Family First votes preference the coalition over Labor. Not all Labor voters would prefer Greens over Family First but between the two, the majority would choose the Greens. Labor and 'liberals for forests' ATL prefs got Fielding over the line, and without ATL there would be no FFP representation in the Senate. But this is off-topic. Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, Timeshift, you're right - it is off topic. Never-the-less, I find it fascinating - not because of what is, but because of the way the major parties use and abuse it, and more particularly, the spin they put on it to justify their obvious self-interest! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter: "I think you're being a bit harsh: it doesn't make it harder to vote for independents who can find a running mate." - With respect, I think you're avoiding the point with that reply. Yes, you are correct in what you say, but that dodges my point. I think this is the first time that NickX has chosen to have a running mate. (I could be wrong.) Why did he have a running mate? So people could vote for him above the line. I don't think I'm being harsh at all. The simple facts are: 1) (Sadly), the VAST majority vote above the line. 2) To get votes above the line, you MUST have 2 or more people and form a group.

You can't vote for "real" individual independents above the line; to vote for them you are required to vote below the line, and fill in every box, and not make any mistakes. The VAST majority can't be bothered doing this. Therefore the system makes it harder for people to vote for independents.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon ran on a 'No Pokies' ATL ticket in the SA upper. Note his running mate being elected in 2006 when he got 20.5 percent of the vote. Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Of course!! (My "excuse" is that it's Monday, and I've yet to engage my brain.) Never-the-less, not withstanding that error, I stand by the rest of what I wrote. (At least, I will until somebody points out another "Monday" error.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon is a real independent. He was the first of two candidates in his ticket. People who voted ATL for Xenophon's ticket did vote for a real independent. Timeshift (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Pdfpdf, I see your point. Nevertheless, an independent can find a running mate and get a column to themselves. I agree that this requirement compromises the voting system a little bit, but I submit that a far, far more serious issue is the way that above-the-line voting distributes preferences without (most) voters' knowledge, and that it allows dodgy preference deals between parties. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift: Oh dear. You have misinterpreted my poorly worded intent. Please ignore the word "real". Yes, I agree that NickX is a real independent, and that people who voted ATL for Xenophon's ticket did vote for a real independent.

Start again.

Why did he have a running mate? So people could vote for him above the line. I don't think I'm being harsh at all. The simple facts are: 1) (Sadly), the VAST majority vote above the line. 2) To get votes above the line, you MUST have 2 or more people and form a group.

You can't vote for individual independents above the line; to vote for them you are required to vote below the line, and fill in every box, and not make any mistakes. The VAST majority can't be bothered doing this. Therefore the system makes it harder for people to vote for individual independents.

I hope that's clearer? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Ballard: Yes, I agree. It saddens me that so few people understand the system; it really isn't all that complex ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A person cannot vote for an individual without voting for their running mate ATL, yes. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Travel bill

Xenophon has recently proposed a bill or stated he is going to introduce a bill to make sure MP's announce 'donated' trips within 60 days of taking them. Sounds like the sort of thing that might be useful to wikipedia.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it would be useful in a fuller article, the current lack of content on his work in the Senate would mean there would be significant weight issues. Timeshift (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

Pre-political life

In 1984, he established and became principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co. which deals solely with personal injury claims. In this field he became successful, and between 1994 and 1997 he served as president of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers' Association. After legislation was passed in 1992 by the Bannon Labor government that saw the introduction of poker machines into South Australia in 1994, the increased incidence of problem gambling came to Xenophon's attention in his legal practice.

1997 state election

During his time as a sitting member, Xenophon has been an activist for a range of issues aside the elimination of pokies, speaking out on consumer rights, essential services, the environment, taxation, and perks for politicians. Xenophon was also vocal in the Eugene McGee hit-run affair, becoming an advocate for the victim's wife, with public opinion eventually forcing the Kapunda Road Royal Commission that led to harsher laws for hit-run offences. He is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts that have gained him both deep respect and ardent criticism. Xenophon has also suffered severe health difficulties that at one stage forced him to take leave.

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Per WP:BURDEN, do not add back, unless properly sourced. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Politics and government work group articles needing infoboxes
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Australia articles
• Low-importance Australia articles
• Start-Class Adelaide articles
• Low-importance Adelaide articles
• WikiProject Adelaide articles
• Start-Class Australian politics articles
• Low-importance Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australian politics articles
• WikiProject Australia articles