Talk:Brian Burke (Australian politician)

message: Is Sarah Burke notable?  Does she currently hold an office in the party? Jayvdb 09:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah Burke 

message: Brian's business partner and colleague, Julian Grill would be an idea to have a mini bio of the relationship between Burke/Grill as it goes back a long way, and may in some way explain for future generations, how our current events had come about. petedavo 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Julian Grill

message: Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#Brian_Burke_scandal petedavo 08:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CCC Discussion

message: Would anyone object to me totally rewriting this article sometime in the next few months? With the sources I have been getting for other articles I can probably put together a rather interesting piece on his 14-year parliamentary career and the aftermath. Orderinchaos 15:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great. I think some of the Premiers' articles could use a revamp. My current project is rewriting Bob Carr. Recurring dreams 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If a re-write is done, I feel it would be worth noting that, in spite of the common claim that Burke 'had dinner with Rudd', in actuallity it was a public affair and that there were some forty people there at the event. The suggestion from the Liberals that it was a one-on-one meeting is shallow mud-slinging. I'd like to think that Wikipedia (one of the few places where the meeting will even be remembered) would record the true details of the affair, rather than the arguably biased media portrayal. That said, I am glad that the correct date is given, clearly showing that the affair pre-dated the major Brian Burke scandals. 210.1.205.75 07:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. And he wasn't exactly giving a speech to the Australian League of Rights or anything like that... if you have or know of a printed source we can use for this information please let me know. Orderinchaos 13:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try one of magazines affiliated with the IPA like Quadrant.petedavo 04:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no objections to a serious rewrite. As a brand new user (politics lecturer has encouraged me) and having one eye on the concept of recentism, I think the man's importance as Premier far outweigh recent scandal. As far as recent scandal or 'criminality' I advise caution. People (media) are so keen to create an interest/scandal where one may not exist - hence, recentism (my new fave word!!!)...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobestronach (talk • contribs) 07:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In relation to Djanga's undo - Burke did abolish capital punishment. He was Premier when the amendment was approved by Cabinet, he was leader of Labor Caucus who all voted for the amendment. If we are going to be technical, it was not the Parliament but the Governor in right of the Crown. Should I put this under Queen Elizabeth II's entry?Tobestronach (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what I'm saying.  A more accurate statement might be something along the lines of "capital punishment in Western Australia was abolished in 1984, during Burke's premiership."  Better still, some details on whether it was a conscience vote or not (from memory it was but I'm not certain). Djanga 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection I see the problem with the original edit. Burke as Premier did not abolish capital punishment as an act of executive government. Rather, it was the Burke Government.Tobestronach (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats cool.  Djanga 06:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I removed the 'recentism' tag. We could argue that Brian Burke had a previous distinguished career as premier, before his criminal history, but it will always be overshadowed by his criminality. If his previous achievements are not covered enough, then they should be expanded, rather than recent history deleted. Nationally, he is known as a criminal and a pariah as much as he is known as Premier. His pariah status is unmatched in Australian politics, and is a major part of the public perception of Burke. Burke's pariah status boiled over into the 2007 national election campaign (everyone accusing everyone else of contact with Burke). This is not 'recentism'. This is a major part of the Burke story, and should be included. Burke is a man so loathed that no current politician can be within 200 metres of him! --Lester 23:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Had he been a fairly minor Premier I would agree with you. The odd part about this guy is he was equal parts good and bad - he achieved *a lot* in the 5 years and broke the entire illusion that Liberal = party of progress. Sadly it wasn't so much what he did (which was largely good!) but how he did it (which was hell dodgy) - but the changes he made to the WA economy and industry and the things he got built are still with us today and I think it's a matter of getting the balance right when telling the story. Orderinchaos 00:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't be saying that what he did was "largely good" if you had had to pay the WA Inc Levy on your car insurance for a decade. Burke sent us to the wall; that is not a good outcome. What he did and how he did it were both "hell dodgy". Hesperian 00:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberal(pun intended) sprinkling of fact tags, I dont dispute the information but according to WP:BLP it still needs to be sourced. Gnangarra 00:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: However I have seen all the works in Mandurah, Rockingham, Bunbury and Geraldton which Burke championed, and directly benefited from the railway and freeway he promoted in the face of massive and incomprehensible opposition from the Liberals which the Labor shadow cabinet had proposed as early as 1982. The electoral reform his government championed in the mid-80s, with Mal Bryce and Arthur Tonkin at the forefront, was almost revolutionary in the sense that for the first time it reduced the power of the elected government to determine its own constitution - something that has limited both Labor and Liberal plans in the time since. I remember the press coverage in the mid 80s when he was almost beyond criticism and just about the most popular Premier ever because of those achievements and other reasons. The article in its present state doesn't give off that impression at all - instead you'd be left wondering how on earth the guy managed to do all this. I'm not arguing he was a good guy - I personally think he brought the State into disrepute - but an article on him should present the whole story, not just the last part of it. There's also the entire period before he became Premier, as an MP for almost 10 years and journalist before that. The mix of the good and the bad extends right to the beginning of the tale. Orderinchaos 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Hesperian 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and ""WA Inc", a term coined by prominent political science academic and author Patrick O'Brien" - incorrect, it was coined by Alan Bond in a 1983 speech to business leaders. I will get a copy of it in December when I have more time but the comment was in the vein of putting forward a strategy and policy to further the state. Of course, we all know what that actually meant from his point of view, but yeah. Orderinchaos 01:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Indeed. And outside of WA he was almost unheard of by most until the Rudd/Campbell business in 2007. Also people like Bob Collins and Milton Orkopoulos and Keith Wright, too. Orderinchaos 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pauline Hanson? Hesperian 01:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no objection to his achievements being added to the article, if it is cited. The whole article is relatively brief, including the corruption sections.--Lester 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism tag - recent criminality 

message: Seems that the history of this Premier can be categorized into what are achievements and what are controversies. Much of the language in this article doesn't seem quite balanced from an objective point of view. For instance, there is alot of reference to various individuals being "forced" into resigning, or whatever. Who did the forcing? Was Burke "forced" to resign his ambassadorship, or was it his choice? Or was his commission withdrawn. I'm also working on some of the achievements of the Burke Govt. I've dug out some contemporary material, also looking through Beresford's book and also John Hamilton's biography which was published in 1988 so gives a more balanced view the Burke Govt before his resignation and subsequent controversies. Anyone have any other suggestions for source material?Tobestronach (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article is unbalanced because it doesn't focus much at all on his Premiership - I've said before in many ways he was equal parts good and bad, he did a hell of a lot for WA and dragged us kicking and screaming out of an old parochial era into the 80s in a very short time. That being said he also did some incredibly shoddy backroom stuff which led to the State's massively bad financial position in the early 90s and also his imprisonment (amongst others). And how he treated his fellow Labor parliamentarians while still in opposition was almost Machiavellian. My understanding re the ambassadorship - but I'm relying on memory and I was 13 or 14 at the time - was that he wasn't so much forced to, as that public pressure made his position untenable and it was either "go or be gone", and that (I'm guessing here) this was around the time of the Hawke/Keating stoushes and things were already ugly in the polls so it brought Federal Labor into the picture too. A useful source - and if you send me your email by "Email this user", I'll send you what I have - is the Political Chronicle regular feature in the Australian Journal of Politics and History, which covered history 6 months at a time and is the basis from which I'm doing a lot of state politics stuff. It has the downside of not being terribly retrospective (they were written 6-8 months after the periods they covered) but in terms of writing in general terms it's not bad and is of an academic standard. I used it to write Bob Pearce, for example. Orderinchaos 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Achievements/Controversy

message: I've protected the page for a week because there seems to be a lot of disagreement about what should be there and this is a BLP article so we need to be extra careful. Orderinchaos 05:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that the section added referred to Beresford's discussion regarding missing documentary evidence relating to the travel claims.  The whole entry boils down to a view that if the forms were found, they would have assisted Burke's defense and the insinuation that they may have disappeared as part of a conspiracy to assist in the finding against him.  The DPP investigated and found no suspects.  The intent may or may not be coatracking, but per WP:BLP this cannot be included in the article, particularly as we are dealing with legal matters and matters of professional reputation.  Djanga 07:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having been asked to review the protection of the article, I support Orderinchaos' actions and would encourage the participants to reach some consensus on content here on the talk page. I have no real interest in the topic, but it is possible that a (very brief) mention of the theory postulated in Beresford's biography may not be unreasonable. However, this edit gives the theory undue weight, reads like soapboxing in Burke's defence and is riddled with veiled accusations of malfeasance from the DPP and judiciary. Mentioning the theory and advocating for it are two different things. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also been asked by OIC to review his protection of this page.  I note that Matt has beaten me here and provided a well considered response, and I concur with the overall content of that comment.  I also support OIC's protection and urge all to continue to seek s NPOV consensus during the next few days.--VS talk 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It's only for a week, and it's basically a situation where I don't think stronger action against individuals is actually warranted. The Wiki way of doing things is to discuss things on the talk page of the article, but a lot of newer editors, many of whom have signed up primarily to fix what they see as being wrong but may not in the conventional sense be SPAs, are unaware of it and would see it as censorship if we just blocked them. If they exhaust the community's patience and ignore/rebuff all attempts to help them work with others, well then there may well be no choice. But I'd like to see if we can get something more productive happening first. Orderinchaos 05:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Am always happy to discuss.  Djanga 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Should be removed.  Its uncited and irrelevant per WP:CATGRS.  Tom and both his parents were WA born BTW.  Djanga 06:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Australians of Irish descent

message: I just checked, and the American Brian Burke gets view on average ~7 times more daily views (645% more) then this (deletion candidate worthy) Brian Burke. The redirect should be reversed. Slaja (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion candidate worthy? I've heard the Australian press say many things about him, but that isn't one of them. Orderinchaos 02:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny stuff :-) Hesperian 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Someone did so here. Essentially he's the subject of three published biographies and is by far the most significant news entry for this name. Orderinchaos 06:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Someone" talked about why it shouldn't be made into a disambig page? No, YOU talked about why it shouldn't be made into a disambig page. Ron Wilson (ice hockey b. 1955) is significantly more notable than Ron Wilson (ice hockey b. 1956), so why doesn't Ron Wilson (ice hockey) direct to Ron Wilson (ice hockey b. 1955)? P.S. sports team general managers (or whatever said sport calls it) are generally a lot more notable than politicians, especially a major one like Brian Burke. Who do you think is more notable, Sir Alex Ferguson or Simon Strelchik?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.28.208 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text:  Also, why is there no mention of the move request on this page? Why is there only mention of the move request on one user's page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.28.208 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: I suspect that the link to Ron Davies in this article is a link to the wrong politician who has the same name. It appears that the WA ALP politician with the name Ron Davies has no Wikipeida page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.85.121 (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to wrong Ron?

message: I'm having some trouble finding an official reference to his Companion of the Order of Australia being revoked/rescinded/stripped from him/whatever the offical terminology is.  I have no doubt it happened because there are cites that say it happened.  But there must have been some Gazette notice or other official document about the matter.  It doesn't seem to rate any mention on It's an Honour.  Where would I find this?  I'm particularly interested in the date the revocation took effect, but also in the way it was formally promulgated.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Stripped of his AC

message: This article seems quite brief for a biography.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.96.250 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Background, personal life?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brian Burke (Australian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128111120/http://www.wa.alp.org.au:80/about/history.html to http://www.wa.alp.org.au/about/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified