Talk:Craig Thomson (politician)

message: I'm wondering if anyone has any suggestions for the structure of the article. Right now, most of the article about this subject (and most of the public interest, for the moment) relates to the allegations of impropriety around the credit cards etc. As of today, this topic is a current event. It's possible that if more and more detail keeps being added, the "Allegations of Impropriety" section will just become sprawling and unreadable, and just a stream of facts.
Does anyone have any suggestions about how the section or story can be broken down into manageable "nuggets"? I would suggest that one logical "chunk" of the story could be the period beginning with the Sydney Morning Herald beginning to publish the stories about Thomson (which would obviously include a summary of the allegations as the SMH made them) and ending with the termination (one way or another...) of Thomson's defamation lawsuit against the SMH.
Any thoughts?
Luzzy fogic (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my suggestion is editors cease publishing unsubstantiated allegations in Wikipedia!!! Is Wikipedia meant to be an educational online encyclopaedia, or a Days of Our Lives soap opera!? YOU Luzzy fogic - you're edits are biased against Thomson. I came here for more information, and instead have been entirely distracted with the trashy material online. The degradation of the standard in Wikipedia, specifically concerning information about People is, untrustworthy now. I give up. You people have ruined this resource :(   Gymboot (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Any suggestions for structure?

message: I'm a little surprised by Bilby's deletion of the - admittedly brief but at least sourced - information about Thomson's first wife, Christa. The suggestion that Thomson used his position as a member of parliament to lobby for her personal interest is a legitimate topic for Wikipedia if it is sourced and public interest. The fact that it's "not connected to the credit card scandal" or "overemphasised" (when mentioned once?) doesn't seem terribly convincing. Luzzy fogic (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the massive amount of information on his scandals, to be honest this seems like a rather minor affair. However, the wording I removed was "His first wife, Christa, was mentioned in relation to the credit card allegations, and accusations that he used his parliamentary email address to "lobby" for a job on her behalf." There were three problems I had with it. The first was that was under "Personal life" - if there is an issue with lobbying it would be better placed in the "Allegations of impropriety" section - having it in personal life feels a bit like shoehorning, as that's not really the issue there. The second was the "mentioned in relation to the credit card allegations", when the alleged lobbying had nothing to do with the credit card allegations. It was raised, but not in relation to them - the most you could say was that it was raised at around the same time as the credit card issues were being debated. Finally, the lobbying consisted, it seems, of sending his wife's resume to the organisation by email. Beyond that there is no allegations that he did anything else, and nothing came of it - it seems like a really minor issue, so giving it prominence in the personal life section seemed particularly odd. Especially given that it seems not to have had any legs, or at least the media didn't seem to cover it after that one time it was raised. - Bilby (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote it and I don't mind you deleted it—I agree, in hindsight it seems like another reporting of a non-issue that didn't go any further (particularly the "lobbying" claim, which was quite a stretch anyway). --Canley (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your thoughts, Bilby and Canley. When you put it like that, I can see your point. On one hand, I think if the issue has any substance to it, then it's of legitimate public interest and belongs in the article. But on the other hand, if the issue had substance, then there should be more than just a passing reference from a single source under an odd heading. Perhaps the right approach is indeed to delete it for the interim, and if anyone (e.g. me, if I'm that interested!) goes away to do more research and finds more relevant sources, they're free to come back and add something with more substance. Cheers. Luzzy fogic (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think Canley was right to add it - it just didn't become more important, but it wasn't a mistake to put it in, as it looked like it might be an issue at the time. If that changes and it becomes an issue, then I've no hassles with it being put back, either. - Bilby (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations around Thomson's first wife

message: Today he said he's had two daughters while the invesrtigations have been going on.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 03:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wife no longer pregnant

message: This article is a problem for people not familiar with abbreviations relating to politics.  Example: The first line ends with MP.  Military Police? Nope. 
Continuous use of abbreviations throughout the article such as HSU. The page is meant to be encyclopaedic, not simplified like a newspaper article. 
ALP near the end of the article. I assume this means Australian Labour Party? Both ALP and MP could have links attached to them. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.39.222.154 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the abbreviation is explained or clarified once, preferably at the first mention, I don't see there's a problem with using abbreviations, acronyms or initialisms. I have expanded the MP reference, and ensured that HSU and ALP were spelt out early on, but they were spelt out in full numerous times. --Canley (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation removal/expansion 

message: Union scandal leaks into a trial by Wikipedia Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears Skyring/Pete is the "father of a poorly paid HSU member". I hope he remembers WP:COI :) Timeshift (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He disclosed that on-Wiki a while ago. I've dropped Pete a note about this in case he hadn't seen the story, especially as the journalist doesn't seem to have actually contacted him for comment judging what's in the article. This is a good reminder that disputes in high profile articles can be reported by the media, with individual editors being identified. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I hope he's been pulled up on that when he's gone against things. I wouldn't know, I tend not to get involved in articles of this nature due to the futility of it. Timeshift (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It's futile. I note, however, that WP:COI says "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." While Pete/Skyring may have disclosed his obvious COI some time ago, this is the first I've heard about it. He recently did tell the world "My intention is to tell the story, for the benefit of readers who come seeking information..." Yeah right. HiLo48 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's far more about that editor which the SMH did not say. Still, I gather McClymont picked up the gossip about Wikipedia from Ball during a social gathering. One21dot216dot (talk) 02:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I haven't noted a conflict of interest by a dad commenting on such material .. can anyone explain to me how there is one? Maybe they can cite Ian Temby? Because it was in the article I'd surmise it was because Pete had declared it. Now for those anonymous types who have a strong interest in this article .. care to declare your interests? I stopped editing the article when I discovered a real one. DDB (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What a weird post. What is Tembe? Of course a father writing about something/somebody that's had what he perceives as a negative impact on a child of his has a conflict of interest. Can you explain how he doesn't? My interest in these articles (which I DID stop editing because Wikipedia has no effective way of dealing with frantic editors like Skyring/Pete) was always to maintain Wikipedia standards and keep blatant parochial politics and commentary out of them. One can be interested in quality without having a POV interest. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ian Temby as head of the ICAC, appointed by Nick Greiner denounced Greiner as being 'technically corrupt' which had no meaning in law and was dismissed on appeal .. but which destroyed Greiner's career as Premier of NSW. A conflict of interest may involve a father daughter relationship in nepotism terms. However this instance is quite removed and only a partial lobbyist would make the claim if they knew what they were writing. DDB (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info on Temby. It's always good to learn about this stuff. (I'm not from NSW.) I don't understand the rest of your post. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

text: For the record, my statement about my so-called "interests" appears here; unlike some others, I have no COI. And FYI HiLo48, it appears the comment you were responding to was altered after you replied to it. Hmmm. One21dot216dot (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was, wasn't it. Makes my post look a bit silly. I'll put it down to a lack of understanding plus incompetence rather than vindictiveness. (I'm feeling nice today.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story about this and related articles in the Fairfax media today 

message: Oh, of course. Timeshift (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, truth and reality can be a problem when the bigots are trying to attack someone. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a minor amendment to this article so people do not get the wrong impression about Thomson. Additionally, i've removed a trivial section which was about plagiarising on wikipedia that had no lasting commentary or significance. I also removed a sentence later in the article that was outdated and added nothing, and was incorrectly linked to CT affair rather than HSU affair. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While not wanting to breach WP:BLP, Craig Thomson may not always be a reliable source on himself. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but without evidence to the contrary...? Timeshift (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not evidence, but police aren't revealing the five people of interest, so i've modified it to say that Thomson says he isn't one of the five. Timeshift (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough (and entirely in keeping with the requirements of WP:BLP) Nick-D (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why haven't the same people jumped on this? 

message: Looking for consensus on this allegation. Is this consistent with wikipedia WP:BLP? I note the cites refer to a journalist who has not released his assessment of what content was plagiarized. I suspect this issue may contain libelous material that is yet to be proven one way or another. CamV8 (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism allegation 

message: The BLP policy on crime is here. The relevant wording is: A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. 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. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. Until Thomson's trial is complete, we should not speculate or gossip here. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to above, although he's been found guilty, the sentence has not been handed down, and a conviction has not been recorded. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You make some really good points here, especially about the recording of a conviction. I think it will be hard to maintain consistency between now and when the sentence is handed down; so I've tried to temper things a little by removing some pejorative language (e.g. fraudster); yet still showing that he's been guilty and that the Court is yet to determine if a conviction is to be recorded and, if so, what that conviction should be, together with any penalty.  Rangasyd (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "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" - Craig "I've done nothibg wrong" Thomson is a well known public character in the Australian psyche. Though "convicted fraudster" is probably pushing it a bit in the opening sentence, perhaps it should be in the second sentence after the introduction of his previous "achievements"RandomUsername765 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

text: It's a matter of a reliable source rather than any personal interpretation of the law. If the Sydney Morning herald says he's been convicted, then he's been convicted. --Pete (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing trial 

message: Thomson's notability does not stem form the fact that he is a criminal, a thief, a fraud. Nor that he was a union official and a federal politician. There are many of those whose notoriety rarely extends beyond the local paper.
The reason he was before the public eye in the national media is because the Gillard government depended on his vote. That made his declarations of innocence, his claims that he was set up, his misleading speech in Parliament so much more of interest to the public. Every day that Gillard declared that she had full confidence in Thomson, every fresh revelation, every scandalous detail undermined her credibility. That made possible Rudd's return, but it also guaranteed Abbott's election.
The article needs to reflect this immense public interest as per the media coverage over the past three years. --Pete (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that any federal MP in this situation would have received a huge degree of coverage, though you are right that Thomson got more than normal due the situation it placed the government in. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us be clear 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Craig Thomson (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091028013042/http://Brendan.O|WA|Connor.MP@aph.gov.au/Library/parl/42/mpsbyage.htm to http://aph.gov.au/Library/parl/42/mpsbyage.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified