Talk:Daniel Andrews

message: A paragraph was removed:   
Andrews is a strong supporter of, has provided significant funding for, a number of controversial, gender-related programs including the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program,[10] and gender dysphoria services at both the Royal Children's Hospital[11][12] and the Monash Medical Centre.[13] - with the justification, "wild POV".   While the underlying issues are contentious, the RS sourced, paragraph does articulate Andrew's POV.    B20097 (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a view of Andrews' stances on LGBT issues as articulated by Lyle Shelton and the ACL. It's a ludicrously biased description. I have zero problem with those going in through neutral language. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "I have zero problem with those going in through neutral language"   &  "if you see a problem, the best approach is to simply fix it yourself." WP:TMM Chapter 8  >   I will put the paragraph back and you might do that.  Thanks   B20097 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope! There was nothing salvageable from that text - it could have been cut from an ACL press release. The entire framing of it is problematic (tying together Safe Schools and youth health care as "controversial gender-related programs" is an absolute ACLism). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Bravo for including references, but they do not seem to mention that the RCH/MMC programs are "controversial", or that the funding of any of the programs is "significant". Additionally, it sounds like Andrews is funding them personally. The inclusion of this passage at all seems a bit undue to me – if it has any effect on Andrews' political career, premiership or government (other than the ACL getting their knickers in a twist about it), maybe, otherwise it seems like a case of "So what?" to me. The article certainly needs expansion, but we need to be careful to distinguish about what goes in the Andrews article and what is done by his government. Compared to the CFA dispute for example, this is a pretty trivial "issue". --Canley (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: For the record

message: Page was vandalised on 1 September at 06:35 by an anonymous user.  Vandalism has been reverted at 07:02 - please feel free to check that reverted version is free from vandalism. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit: this appears to be repeat vandalism, so I will investigate what measures need to be taken. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism reverted 

message: The current portrait as of 11 January 2018 is wholly inadequate and should be replaced with something that has higher resolution and at leas a smiling or neutral facial expression.
Puuugu (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Low resolution portrait

message: I believe my edits are completely justified, anyone who wants to hide this information has an agenda, the Rorts For Votes affair is called this throughout the media and Victorian public. (Ralph11 (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a completely unfounded personal attack. It is not called such. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe Wikipedia should be using the term "Rorts for Votes" as if it IS the formal name of something. It would be difficult for you to prove that it "is called this throughout the media and Victorian public". It may be valid to write that it has been described as such by Person X or Journal Y. But that's not what you have been doing. The other problem you have now is that you have blatantly breached our 3RR rule. That makes any reverting by you in that area in the next 24 hours unacceptable. Please wait. Let others comment here. Make further constructive comments of your own. (But not about other editors. That's never going to help.) Overall, be patient. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very feeble attempt, blatant election propaganda. The only thing of substance here was that the investigation was reopened. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rorts For Votes

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Please added (Use Australian English) to the top of article because strong national ties to Australia, for example:
*(Use Australian English|date= July 2020)
Thanks 110.137.184.3 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020 

message: "With the retirement of Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman in January 2020, Andrews became the longest-serving incumbent state premier."
Can you change this to:
 "Since the retirement of Tasmanian premier Will Hodgman in January 2020, Andrews has been the longest-serving incumbent state premier."
The first one's all right, but I think a "since" would sound a little more normal.  "Since" will become out of date once he leaves his current position, but the "with" statement would become irrelevant at that time (20 years from now, who will care that he was the longest-serving incumbent state premier at some point), so time-sensitivity and currency are basically the same whether or not you accept my request. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:A86B:4D2C:8205:FF01 (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 

message: In the infobox, it mentions Andrews’ party as the “Labor Party”. It’s a small one, but can someone remove the word “Party” so it just says “Labor”. We know Labor is a political party so including this word ‘party’ is a bit redundant. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D059:9A00:116C:ACB1:91F4:9C34 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No - that's not the party he's the parliamentary leader of. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I will add to Nick-D's comment by pointing out that this is a global encyclopaedia, and we need to be precise about these things for readers not familiar with the political scene in Australia. And not all parties have the word "Party" as part of their name. The best known example would be The Australian Greens. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial request seems fair to me. The majority of Australian politician infoboxes use the shorter version in the interest of brevity ("Labor", "Liberal", "Greens") and those that don't tend to use the full name in the interest of precision ("Australian Labor Party", "Liberal Party of Australia", "Australian Greens"). "Labor Party" accomplishes neither brevity nor precision, and I don't see any reason to use it. I would suggest "Labor" over "Australian Labor Party" for consistency's sake but have no strong objection if "Australian Labor Party" is preferred. Frickeg (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Although - are we maybe talking about different things? I assumed the original poster was talking about the "Labor Party" that appears in the political party field, but re-reading Nick-D's comment at least (not sure about HiLo) it seems that he's talking about the "Labor Party" in "Leader of the Labor Party in Victoria". And frankly, I'd be inclined to omit that last one altogether. This is already a long, long infobox, and the relevant dates/deputies etc. are covered by the Leader of the Opposition and Premier sections. Frickeg (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: Labour state government at work lmao.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:59DB:4100:C553:B7A7:A71D:11D1 (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A very misleading headline from Sky, a completely unreliable source on anything to do with the ALP. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoria bans New Year's Eve kissing 

message: Any citation for this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:59DB:4100:C553:B7A7:A71D:11D1 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the previously used one here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Andrews is a practising Roman Catholic." 

message: New section on Daniel Andrews' sample on the Mash'd N Kutcher remix Get On the beers! (2020) should be added, as well as the Premier's response (found on his Facebook) to the song gaining a rank on the Triple J Hottest 100 of 2020.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caitiemcmen (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would tabloid style trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mash'd N Kutcher ft. Daniel Andrews "Get On The Beers"  

message: Came here after watching a video published through Twitter with Andrews replying to a question, making a rambling, word salad statement regarding Covid vaccination. Specifically where he starts to suggest that the unvaccinated will be refused medical / hospital treatment if unvaccinated and that the vaccine refuseniks were the cause of the spread of the disease. The almost incoherent rambling swivel eyed statement sounding like a drunken madman - at least to me, an Englishman used to Boris Johnson (UK P.M.) stuttering delivery. Reading this article, it revolves around a commentary and statistics on his handling of Covid (and little else). After watching the Twitter video it was almost as if there is some kind of disaster on the scale of the Black Death and the man had been coerced at gunpoint into an unrehearsed and totally unprepared hysterical press release. The man seemed like a loony - or is it just an Australian thing? This is just an observation from "The Old Dart" after watching aghast the Twitter video. Otherwise Victoria and it's leadership is very strange indeed. 
:Is there a point to the above? HiLo48 (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think our anonymous friend is giving their impression of a "rambling, word salad". Burrobert (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought of describing it as an "almost incoherent rambling swivel eyed statement", but I'm glad you started it! HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reads like self promotion 

message: - Andrews being fined for accidentally breaching mask rules is NOT a significant part of his life. It's just part of the 24 hour news cycle. It will quickly disappear from the news. I don't believe it belongs in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's suitable given the pandemic section on his profile. He has broken the rules introduced by his Government during the pandemic and I think that's quite notable, although I do agree regarding the news cycle. A leader getting fined is also a very rare occurrence. If there is consensus to remove it, then no worries (which is why I didn't add it back myself) but I do think it should stay. --Simba1409 (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Everything in the article has disappeared from the news cycle. This is directly relevant to him, it doesn't belong anywhere else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's tabloid trivia. Nothing else. It says nothing about his personality, his attitude, his overall behaviour, his...well anything! HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it can go under the personal life section? Tony Abbott has his mask fine there also. --Simba1409 (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither belongs. We don't report on every parking fine these people have copped. And they are probably more deliberate offences than those under discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid trivia, surely 

message: Keen to seek consensus for removal of this section. It is not about Daniel Andrews. It is about the Vic Labor party and Andrews wasn't even involved. It belongs on the Vic Labor page, not here.
--Simba1409 (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Belongs in the election articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections in a few days, I'll remove the section because as stated it doesn't belong on this page. --Simba1409 (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of electoral officers section removal 

message: Fix vandalism 49.192.60.138 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021 

message: There is something about Dan Andrews being convicted of treason.
Please see the article below:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zjwXmut5oUY
49.178.92.40 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to watch a random YouTube video. I recommend you have a read of WP:YOUTUBE. If Andrews really has been convicted of any crime, it's bound to be documented in a written reliable source. That's what you need to present here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Sorry this is the link...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10306595/amp/Victorian-Premier-Daniel-Andrews-listed-court-concealing-TREASON.html 49.178.92.40 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's no better. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't this better than YouTube?49.178.92.40 (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You will see at the link I provided that Wikipedia's consensus on the Mail is that it is generally not a reliable source. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The story also appears in The Hun, of course, which seems to be regarded as reliable, and elsewhere. It is a private prosecution, which will take place in the Myrtleford Magistrates’ Court. The HS says "The case — while expected to be dismissed — has exposed a little-known power where anyone can pay $85.70 and bring a private prosecution against another person. The practice hails from the early days of the justice system, where victims of crimes brought their own cases to the king’s court". Burrobert (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't regard The Hun as a reliable source. It's part of the Murdoch stable, and cannot be relied upon to tell the truth on any matter concerning the ALP. Good for the footy score though. I note that the opening line here spoke of a conviction. That's quick justice! HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

text:  Wow. Is it only in Victoria or other parts of Australia and the British Commonwealth?49.178.92.40 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

text: I recommend you have a read of [] to see some of the concerns editors see with The Hun. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

text: HiLo48 is a gatekeeper who will not allow any criticisms of Labor figures like Andrews to remain on WP. Just because he believes that the Herald Sun isn't a reliable source doesn't make it so and no reason to not use it as a source in articles, regardless of what discussion saying otherwise he can link to. 124.170.113.59 (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree, but we do have this policy about reliable sources. Probably best to provide a link to the exact article in the Herald-Sun for checking. Articles are generally okay as sources, opinion pieces not so much. If something is true and notable then it will probably be found in several other sources. The Australian, for example. As Daniel Andrews is a living person, WP:BLP applies and sources should be carefully chosen if the topic is controversial, as I imagine a charge of treason might be. Perhaps wait until The Grauniad runs the same story? Even the most devoted Daniel Andrews lickspittle will have no problems with that. --Pete (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Looking further into this, it seems that it was a stunt, and promptly rejected by the local beak. Hardly something that needs to go into a biographical article about a well-regarded leader. --Pete (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

text: well regarded? um, ok. Save it for the less regarded. 124.170.112.238 (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you don't make the mistake of thing Pete is a fan of Andrews. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. But Andrews IS well regarded by the voters. See this. HiLo48 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where did I say he's a fan? And opinion polls are just that: opinions. Of a 1000 or so people. BTW, are you a Dan fan?  124.170.112.238 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say I'm a fan of too many mainstream big-party politicians. Barack Obama, Jacinda Ardern, Alfred Deakin, a few others. Daniel Andrews is well-regarded, including by me. Nevertheless, this treason thing was a stunt, was thrown out in court, and has no legitimacy. It's not worth mentioning in this article, though perhaps if there is an article on Screwball anti-vaxxers this might warrant a sentence or two. Have at it. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's anti-vaxxers got to do with it? lol. If he's so universally well regarded why is there a lock on this page, are people trying to add info on things like the red shirts rorting? Why is there no mention of this, the current IBAC hearings etc.? 124.170.104.143 (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's locked to protect the article from vandalism, both deliberate (of which there has been far too much), and also caused by large numbers of inexperienced, enthusiastic editors of the kind the article seems to attract, who make innocent mistakes. If you believe something needs to be added to the article, feel to to recommend it here on the Talk page, with appropriate reliable sourcing. We will not, however, add content about ridiculous, failed court cases and obvious politically biased nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Politically biased nonsense. Oh the irony. But yeah, Dan's going through a rough trot at the moment, as are all the heads of government in Australia. Too many people blaming them for some aspect of the pandemic, and they can't win. Is there an article where criticism of government actions and the resulting protests, riots, spreader events can be accumulated? That movement is notable in itself rather than in the various Premier/PM articles as a hodgepodge of partisan comment. --Pete (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

text: What stance? HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

text: There appears to be no article on that subject. It could be relevant to articles about the Victorian ALP or the 2014 Victorian State election. It does not appear to be directly relevant to Andrews' page. In 2018, the police started an investigation under the name operation Ocotillo, after a report by Ombudsman Deborah Glass found the Labor Party misused $388,000 in taxpayer funds by falsely signing timesheets for Labor field organisers and campaigners to pay them for ALP work in the 2014 state election. Andrews was not one of MP's that the police wanted to interview. The police said it would not prosecute anyone over the scandal. Burrobert (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this a serious response?   124.170.116.21 (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I do wish you could write some meaningful words telling us what you are trying to demonstrate there. I did you the courtesy of looking at each one of those links. The first is about what the inquiry cost. The second is about Andrews being "explosively" accused. The third said the police would do some investigating. The fourth involved a sacked minister complaining about the person who sacked him. The fifth doesn't mention Andrews at all. The sixth  was about allegations that senior police prevented junior police from arresting some politicians. None of these explicitly discuss Andrews in any way other than in the form of allegations. This is the article about Dan Andrews, the person. It's not about his government. It's a biography of a living person. We cannot fill such an article with unproven allegations. That is very clear Wikipedia policy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Demonstrate? That you're a gatekeeper to this article; the red shirts was a misappropriation of funds during the '14 election campaign when Andrews was ALP leader & seeking the office of Premier. He later apologized & ALP paid the $ back yet you consider it not worthy of mention in his biog? That says it all really. Unless, of course, he had a lobster with a mobster then it would be a compulsory inclusion ... 124.170.116.21 (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just another allegation, this time from you. None of the six sources you listed  in your previous post explicitly say what you have again just alleged. Without a reliable source that says that, it's not going in the article. Even WITH such a source, you have to demonstrate that it directly involved Andrews and that it belongs in his biography. Wikipedia can be sued for publishing unsupported, derogatory allegations. I also recommend  that you stop talking about me. Anyone can contribute to this discussion. I cannot and am not preventing anyone else from doing so, but if you keep discussing other editors, action WILL be taken. NOTE: I also recommend you have a look at WP:INDENT, which tells you about structuring discussions effectively on Talk pages through indentation. HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

text:  "allegation"  
Yes, oh gatekeeper. Take action. Against what? An indentation infraction?  124.170.110.51 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

text:          124.170.110.51 (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Yes, we must stick precisely to policy. We should all bookmark this very pertinent statement of yours and bring it out when required. It is of supreme importance. --Pete (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased you agree with me on that, but what about the issue at hand? HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion is not progressing. If anyone wants to include a mention of this episode in DA's bio, provide a suggested wording with sources supporting that wording. Burrobert (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treason 

message: I could not find a single reliable source about his birthdate. I have found sources about his age and his Twitter account has his birthday but not source about his birth date.
2600:100C:A202:CE24:4C91:80C6:4A04:B9C7 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the Victorian Parliamentary Handbook, see PDF here. --Canley (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth date sources 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Resignation as of 26/09/2023 with live press conference. Effective 27/09/2023 at 17:00 AEST Postmethod (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Already noted in the article. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation 

message: "...the Premier said the cost had escalated to an estimated $6–7 billion, double the estimated benefits, and the government could not justify the expense."
Reliable source to back this statement:  https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/commonwealth-games-costs-too-high-over-6-billion 220.235.235.63 (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth Games Cost 

message: There's a sentence in the lede which says this very thing.
Change to A PROMINENT FIGURE (determiner)
or ONE PROMINENT FIGURE (pronoun).
(you could even say "One of the more" or "One of the most" - that might not be neutral point of view if we can't source it)
(the point is that "promient figure" can't be naked).
--58.108.122.0 (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Prominent figure among progressive politicians in Australia'