Talk:Nick Xenophon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Portal	Nick Xenophon is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Speculation 2 Unimportant (?) Facts 3 Last edit 4 Errors in Carr link 5 Xenophon voted for hansard censorship 6 Stateline 7 Opposition to Workchoices 8 Policies link 9 What got Sarah Hanson-Young elected?

[edit] Speculation

Would it be worthwhile putting up a synthesis of speculation in the media as the Xenophon's unusual success? I think there is a discussion point here about how South Australian's feel about their parties and what attracts them in such numbers to an independent like Xenophon. At the moment we only have one sentence about media stunts, but it is more than that I am sure. --150.203.2.85 08:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to expand that sentence. :) I feel that it is Nick's down-to-earth apporach, the fact that he won't take the perks of being re-elected into the Upper House and he just seems like an honest guy. I know that there isn't really a way of adding that to the page, as it is just my opinion but hopefully we could site a source.

I read in a few articles just after the election, where Nick explained why he thought he got so many votes. I'll look for it.

And good job on the page so far. I promised myself that if he made it in again that I would make his page, but someone beat me to it. :P --Rachel Cakes 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added an explanation to my blog a while back. Tell me if you think it's any good and worth adding: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19280825&postID=114285659181195113 . --59.167.147.127 13:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly he is perceived as being very honest and hardworking. The Democrats candidate in Norwood David Winterlich wrote a bit more negative-sounding article about Xenophon though for the daily Crikey.com.au rag (Monday 27 March news) which you could quote. Since it's not available online, I'm pasting it here. He paints a slightly less rosy picture of Xenophon but as far as I'm concerned it serves the Democrats right for completely missing out on a spot in the upper house themselves because their preferences also blocked out Xenophon! All the lockout did though was to stop his party getting a third place though. Of course this article is copyrighted, but I only paste it here for research purposes, not publication. We can delete it later as necessary. -- Donama 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

18. Xenophon the opportunist - David Winderlich, wildly unsuccessful Democrat candidate for Norwood and former refugee advocate, writes: Nick Xenophon's initiative to open his books is most welcome. And his rapid response to rumours about financial funny business shows that he is not going to rest on his laurels. But for some years now I have seen him as a rampant populist. He'll fight for the little man – but only if the little man is acceptable to the broader community. I know this because in 2001 I met with Nick to ask him to speak up for refugees. He didn't want to touch them. It was post 9/11 and Mosques were getting bombed. So I asked him to speak up for Muslims. He was prepared to put his name to a list but only after other prominent people had done so. Since then he has astutely jumped on every emerging interest group from residents resisting infill to the land tax revolt currently underway. He regularly chairs public meetings for these interest groups. I stand to be corrected but I don't think he has ever spoken out against the law and order auction that has been underway for the last four years. And now he has teamed up with a woman with strong links to the Festival of Light, Ann Bressington. A lot of Greens, Democrats and Labor people voted for Nick and even staffed his polling booths. I suspect he soaked up the progressive protest vote which would presumably have otherwise gone to the Greens and to a much lesser extent, the Democrats. He is brilliant although he has had some (presumably expensive help). Look for the payments to PR companies when he opens his books. Nick has done some good things for people who were ignored by other parties. His Industrial Manslaughter Bill is probably the biggest contribution. But it remains to be seen whether he will play any part in tackling big issues like climate change or standing up for civil liberties in our increasingly terrorized state. If he does, then all power to him. If he doesn't, then a lot of progressive voters will have been Xenoconned.

The "Industrial Manslaughter Bill" to which Winterlich refers is presumably the Asbestos legislation, right? My personal opinion is that the asbestos legislation was the single biggest reason for Xenophon's success: it was popular, close to the election, and showed him standing up for a just cause when other politicians wouldn't. However I haven't seen any poll data so that's just my analysis, not anyone else's. IOW, I'm not sure whether to add it to the main article. Rocksong 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rocksong, you're definitely right. Many other news sources made the same comment about Xenophon's contribution to helping asbestos victims. Just cite the Crikey article in the main article. — Donama 22:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a very good article to read and I wholeheartedly agree with it - whilst Xenophon is good to have as an independent and I do think it's good he remains there, I also heavily agree that he is populist - and to see that he doesnt want to touch refugee or muslim issues with a 10 foot poll only highlights it. Good find! Timeshift 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unimportant (?) Facts

I'm doing a second revert on the Atkinson quote. I don't doubt it's true, but what's the point? If Xenophon polled 4% below the Libs statewide, it's hardly surprising that he outpolled them in a strong Labor electorate like Atkinson's. IMHO, it's the sort of unimportant fact that clutters too many Wikipedia articles. Rocksong 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you were reverted because you didn't explain the deletion. I'm not sure I agree. So, let Wikipedia be cluttered, so long as the clutter is at the end of the article. Not everybody knows enough about SA politics to be able to know Atkinson's electorate is so safe for Labor. Why not assist understanding by leaving it in. And to me it seems a matter of personal judgement as to whether it's surprising or not too. If you think this sentence is putting too much spin on Xenophon's success in that electorate then perhaps point this out in the article. What do you say? — Донама 08:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Rocksong now. Considering they were so close to the Liberals statewide, it's hardly surprising that they'd have outpolled them in some booths. Ambi 08:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not about spin, it's about making an article which is relevant and readable. It's a single data point, from one politician, based on one electorate, as heard on ABC radio. It's like listing all the brands of lollies he had sewed into his jacket for his cinema stunt. It's far too detailed and out of place for an article of half a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps if it said "in some booths he even outpolled the Liberals" with a footnote on the source, it'd be OK. But whatever; if other people are happy it can stay in. Rocksong 11:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think people are seeing the big picture here which is to contrast the strong success of the No Pokies ticket with the failure of the Liberals to mount any serious challenge to Labor - sure it doesn't matter that a few booths had Xenophon polling higher, but what it does point out is that no doubt, across the electorates, some polling booths will have had Xenophon polling higher. There will be no way it just happened in Croydon. To show labors or liberals particular up or down at the time when looking at the election from an historical point of view, I think it is important to show Xenophon outpolled the Liberals. If they win the 2010 election it will show how much they improved during this time. To remove it is picky, it's not as if the page is cluttered at the moment as it is. Would it satisfy people if "(safe labor)" was added before where it says "electorate had Xenophon polling higher than the Liberals"? Also have corrected the percentage.Timeshift 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the big picture is that Xenophon outpolled the Libs in some electorates. What I don't like is that the comment is limited to Atkinson's electorate. If he outperformed them there, he doubtless outperformed them in other electorates also. That's why I suggested the broader comment "in some booths he even outpolled the Liberals", with a footnote giving Atkinson as the source. But heck, this has escalated into a big debate over a single sentence (my fault I admit), way out of proportion to how much I care, so this'll probably be my last comment on it. Rocksong 07:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can see your point that it gives the impression that it may only be limited to that electorate. I am happy for it to be rephrased as seen fit but would prefer to keep that fact there for reasons already stated. Timeshift

[edit] Last edit

How is Foley's altercation with Xenophon not worthy of a mention? Why the revert? Timeshift 08:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because politicians have hundreds of minor little points throughout their lives but must of these deserve a mention. If every little comment / scuffle / alteration a politician was involved in was presented it wouldn't be comprehensive - it would be a mess. The problem of a news article being printed and then a wikipedian adding a little one liner to an article is something that needs to be dealt with. michael ^talk 09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem? Timeshift 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just think about what the article would be like if every time a ews article came out about the topic at hand and a one-liner was added. This alteration is not worthy of addition. michael ^talk 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02: I support Rebecca's revert. IMHO it deserves mention in Foley's article but not Xenophon's. The drunken assault is newsworthy and reflects badly on Foley, but Xenophon (by all reports) was only the victim and I don't think it deserves mention here. Rocksong 13:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Carr link

As I mention in the article, the Carr link (1997 election result) has errors: he gets the Labor + Liberal seat numbers wrong (they got 4 each, not 5 and 3), and the lists of elected members are wrong also. I emailed Adam a while back. He acknowledged my email but hasn't fixed it. I assume because he can't find any better data. Rocksong 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Check my talk page under '1997 election'... the data is on http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/lchistory.htm and Adam Carr knows about it and has acknowledged it, but doesn't seem to want to fix it, or has simply forgotten about it... Timeshift 08:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Carr is extremely prejudiced and dishonest. You can't rely on his site for election results. He doesn't recognise any results that he doesn't like. Carl Kenner 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophon voted for hansard censorship

I actually think that whilst it does not warrant a contribution on every MLCs wiki page, I think it does deserve it on this one. Nick prides himself as a free voice for the people, in other words a populist, wanting to drive pollies crazy as his election posters said... yet he votes in favour of hansard suppression. As voltaire once said, I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Timeshift 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except Voltaire didn't say it. It was made up by a biographer 100 years after his death. And it was a dopey, insipid statement anyway, IMO ;-)

Sorry, forgot the tildes Leo 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of an edit war happening on the Xenophon and Bressington pages over whether to include their vote on suppressing Kanck's speech from the Hansard web version. I agree it looks out of place on their pages, but I also agree that the information deserves to be somewhere on Wikipedia. In fact, I think all interesting/controversial votes deserve to be on Wikipedia. Therefore I propose a page with a title something like "Voting Records in the South Australian Parliament". Each paragraph could briefly describe the bill (with a link as appropriate), with a summary of who voted each way. It could also be done for the Australian parliament, and make interesting reading for things like conscience votes, or issues decided by independents or renegades. Comments? Rocksong 07:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But the problem with that is big issues like hansard suppression, in a page like that, would simply get drowned out by everything else there. I happen to think this issue (unprecedented hansard suppression) should appear on some but not all. I believe it should be on Sandra Kanck, Mike Rann and Bob Sneath as michael suggested, however I also believe it should be on Xenophon's, Bressingtons, Mark Parnells (Green), and the two Family First MLCs. They are the "independents" (for want of a better collective term) who are not bound by Labor/Liberal party voting lines, with the exception of Rann and Sneath, but they are for obvious reasons. They have voted for hansard suppression (bar Parnell) and it should be stated in their profile. Timeshift 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it can possibly be worse than the situation as it stands now, where the Wikipedia contents depends on (a) what people decide is worth recording, and (b) whose pages they remember/decide to put them on. Plus, as the number of controversial votes increases, the pages become a mess. If the controversial/contentious votes are all in one place I content that they will not be drowned out, rather they will be easy to find. And they only need to be recorded once. Rocksong 08:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I tell you what. I start a page like that anyway (both SA and Aust versions), if I get the time and motivation. If it proves useful, voting information can be migrated off individual pages at a later date. Rocksong 08:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this as a petty, irrelevant issue that splashed onto the tabloids because of the poor quality of political life in general (anyone who has read the speech would know how off-key the coverage is). I'm completely in favour of mentioning the debacle on Kanck's page; however, I consider the issue irrelevant on the pages of the other MP's (which, for the most part, are barely more than stubs) and the only reason I suggested it go on the other pages was so I could throw a bone and not get bitten (again). Xenophon is an unashamed and avowed populist, he'll stand for any issue that looks good; his vote on this issue is irrelevant.

Are we going to add a new "this MP voted this way on this matter" line every time an MP votes a particular way in the latest 'controversial' issue?

A page listing votes would be extremely cumbersome—MPs vote on dozens to hundreds of issues every day (some petty, some not so petty). Both the scope of the proposed article, and the process that would decide what issues are worth including, would be very difficult to manage. michael ^talk 08:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. Both ideas – to include the voting records in each and every MP article and to create an article for voting records themselves – are contrary to encyclopædic coverage. It is making a value-judgement – and thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR – to arbitrarily decide that a few MPs' positions with regards to an issue centred entirely on Sandra Kanck warrants special mention.--cj | talk 08:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For a voting record article, no value judgement is required. Ignore votes which pass unanimously (the vast majority), and include the votes which are not unanimous. Those votes are, by definition, contentious. Possibly petty or a waste of time, but certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Rocksong 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Rocksong. Timeshift 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I still can't believe that people aren't seeing it for the bigger picture - hansard suppression. Timeshift 08:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, hansard suppression related to a Kanck speech. So mention it on her page. michael ^talk 08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Michael on this. While it makes me angry, it only really belongs on the Kanck page, and perhaps on Hansard or a related page. Rebecca 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement with Michael. It is only relevent to articles about Kanck or Hansard. misanthrope

Yes, Hansard suppression related to Kanck, but instigated by Rann and some party heavies, supported by Family First (who usually don't vote with Labor), and the Independents - one a populist, and the other avowedly anti-euthanasia. One the other side we have Libs and Greens who are unlikely political bedfellows. Leo 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and we get all of that precedence and controversy at the cost of a sentence or two on pages that are as boring as batshit. IMHO. Leo 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

C'est la vie. misanthrope

I'm sure we'll find a compromise eventually. C'est la guerre. ;-) Leo 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stateline

Stateline is doing a piece on Xenophon's bid for the Senate at 7:30 (10 minutes time, at time of posting) Timeshift 09:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are speaking with Xen and Natasha and a journalist FWIW. Timeshift 10:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting watch. That's now Natasha and Antony Green thinking he'll get in. Timeshift 10:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Missed it. But the transcript should turn up here soon: http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/default.htm, and may make a useful addition to the article. Peter Ballard 10:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Workchoices

I'm really sorry, but I deleted "opposition to workchoices" from his platform, since I didn't see any sign of that, and I read most of the articles about him, and the supposed reference didn't mention it. If that is genuinely part of his platform then I sincerely appologise. Carl Kenner 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it as a geniune mistake. It's in the Age link,[1] but you need to keep reading to page 2. Peter Ballard 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I didn't read it very carefully. Sorry. There is an Advertiser interview that contradicts that though. I suspect he is trying to play both sides of that issue. I'll see if I can find it... Carl Kenner 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove what is cited. And I doubt he is trying to play both sides of that issue, Xenophon is a populist and would never support WorkChoices. Timeshift 15:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policies link

Why are we deciding to remove the link for Xen's policies when we are not doing the same for Family First? Primary links are not issues as long as the article isn't framed around those primary links. Timeshift 08:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, (though I'd lean to excluding it, since his official site is already in the External links section)... but where is it in the Family First article? Peter Ballard 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I was unable to locate it upon looking now too. But I found out why it is no longer there, and does the reason why it's no longer there surprise me? Nope. Why do I feel like we're getting new Joestellas in Prester and Brendon? Timeshift 09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In their defence, WP:External links#Important points to remember says (point 3), "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website". In both cases (Nick X and FF) the policies are a single click from the main page. The deletions are probably OK. Peter Ballard 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be OK to use the link as a citation for a description of what the policies are. However, it shouldn't be stuck into the article in isolation as a substitute for a NPOV description - obviously a political candidate's website isn't going to give an unbiased view of their policies. I've just tagged the Family First article as needing third-party references for its section on the party's policies. --Nick Dowling 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The link for Xenophon's polices (being similar to those of Family First) would be the Independent Weekly article "Do You Really Know This Man?"(I think). This article was printed in South Australia prior to the last federal election. Apart from that I don't know where on the internet citation articles would be found to support this statement. The policies concerned are not on his website, so I can't simply link there. It is difficult to prove what his policies are, if they are not spelt out in the public domain(? maybe they are somewhere on the net?). I think there is room for opinion in Wikipedia articles- Xenophon's policies are an issue that has otherwise gone unnoticed in the mainstream media. The policies are kept quiet, as his vote might be affected if they were publicised too much. Sometimes a supporting citation is really only the opinion of a respected journalist or other person, anyway. I still think it is very relevant to this article, so could somebody please find evidence for his policies being similar to those of Family First? As the Wikipedia guidelines say, there are very few real facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.158.170 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not room for opinion in Wikipedia article. WP:OR. Also WP:SOAP. Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - see also WP:V - we should be using facts from peer-reviewed, published sources. If they're not out there already, we can't just speculate on them. Orderinchaos 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is supported opinion. Not just my own opinion. Would it be better to say "Xenophon's policies are considered by a journalist of Independent Weekly (South Australia) to be very close to those of Family First"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.158.170 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nick Xenophon: Well, I'm a bit more reluctant to support gay marriage. But that's something I'm happy to talk to people about. I think the main thing is to remove discrimination - so, perhaps I'm not as libertarian as some, but I'm certainly not a social conservative as Brian Harradine."[2] (or Family First). Or, "Xenophon had previously supported de facto reforms in South Australia. But Family First Senator Steve Fielding has joined with the Coalition to block every equality or gay-supportive motion introduced since he entered Parliament in 2004."[3] Now take your WP:OR and WP:SOAP elsewhere thanks. Timeshift (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What got Sarah Hanson-Young elected?

Considering the lack of movement in the primary vote in the Greens in SA, whose preferences were the main contributor? Xenophon? Labor? Timeshift (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ageing hippies and young radicals, but besides that, our friend Antony has a spiffy little rundown here. Michael ^talk 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Young radicals lol. That page confuses me. Timeshift (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Social conservative capitalist-sceptics pro-Labor people like my parents who vote 1 above the line and don't know anything about preferences . If most of the Asians and maybe older Italian/Greek immigrant type social-conservative Labor voters knew what SHY got up to when she was leading the Adelaide Uni Union, then they wouldn't vote for her. I told my parents what she did and they would definitely not have voluntarily voted for her if they knew how preferences worked. I'm sure most other immigrants from socially conservative backgrounds wouldn't if they knew either.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure liberals for forests supporters didn't want their preferences to elect Steve Fielding either. But that's what group voting tickets do. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, except LibForests only get some % < 3% of the vote....you never know, some of those LibF might be social conservative enviro ppl. Juding by their name, I would guess they are...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

small-l's arent necessarily social conservatives. Also, SA Greens got over 6%, FF in 2004 in Vic got under 2%. That's 12% in preferences. BTW, in the Senate SHY got my 1st vote with Xenophon getting my 2nd, so i'm happy. Pref'd the rest of the greens ticket, then Labor (Penny Wong down, skipped Farrell). Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. My ranking of SHY was specifically lowered by my personal observations of her at uni...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear, care to be specific? BTW the Greens vote along party lines, so as long as I agree with Bob Brown, the Greens candidate gets my vote (big change from 2004 for me). Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, not on-wiki, I don't want to get in trouble for BLP if I publish my primary source OR (BLP applies to the talk page as well). Having said that I wouldn't be surprised if a few ALP guys did the same type of stuff when they were at uni. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You could always use 'email this user' :-) Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has heard S H-Y speak would know she's a barking socialist in the vein of Nettle. She's no social democrat. Her voice is enough to send people running for the trenches and I find these comparisons with the 'Tash absolutely absurd. Michael ^talk 03:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You should have seen her in action in late 2002 when John Howard opened the Petroleum Engineering department at Adelaide Uni. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you base a person's political orientation on their voice? BTW I heard her voice repeatedly, selling herself on FreshFM prior to the election. (good to know the right also suffer from talk page slander :) Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)