Talk:Wayne Matthew

message: I'm hoping Waymat reads this before he edits again. Waymat, what is with your reasoning of "removed mischevious information inserted by biased political operative" as to removing my line of "was a prominent supporter of Dean Brown's leadership over the Liberal party against John Olsen, and", in an article that I created? I have tried to keep my wiki edits as close to NPOV as possible whilst ensuring that facts arent hidden at fear of being ever so slightly POV. The line simply shows where his allegence was, much like how there is most likely information on wiki about federal wet and dry liberals. Factions are a fact of life, and exist on both sides. Why remove it when there is nothing mischevious about it? Timeshift 06:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Timeshift: the Liberal party of the Brown/Olsen era was seriously factionalised, even if the factions were not formal as in the ALP. So I think his factional allegiance deserves to be mentioned. I do have reservations about the word "prominent", however. Rocksong 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested adding in 'moderate' (as Olsen and Brown represent the conservative and moderate factions respectively). It is appropriate enough. michael talk 06:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey michael, I notice the change of position of reference. The reason I put it there was so the word 'moderate' would not be removed again (see history)... Timeshift 06:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well aware - references are usually placed at the end of sentences / paragraphs. In addition, more than just his factional allegiance is referenced. michael talk 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he was a Brown supporter I think the article should say so. Simply saying he was a "moderate" says almost nothing. Rocksong 07:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I completely agree, but tell Waymat that. I've referenced poll bludger. I've tried reasoning with him but he never replies (which only makes it more look like WayMat is really Wayne Matthews (and the fact he has edited barely anything else)) but just keeps reverting, so I switched to moderate, but an anon removed that too. I've been called mischievous and a bias political operative. Even the anon made a point in the editing note "Removed factional reference - Wayne Matthew was a member of no loose factional grouping. Further, unlike the ALP the Liberal Party has no formal factions."... with the simple word of "moderate", which has an excellent unbias wiki article defining what it is. Well if the single extra word of moderate suddenly causes that sort of reaction, i'll be damned. Timeshift 09:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Antony Green's election guide - departing MPs doesn't say he was a Brown supporter (and I had no idea if he was), but it does note that he was dumped from the ministry when Olsen became premier in 1996. Perhaps we could just say that - a fact Waymat can't dispute - and let the reader read between the lines. Rocksong 11:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also OK (bear in mind that after a year or so he began slowly picking up portfolios again, see parliament profile). I would be very appreciative if you can alter it, so I am not accused of being a "mischievous bias political operative". Timeshift 11:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Personally I don't care if we remove the word "moderate" and the Poll Bludger link, but I left them in. Rocksong 12:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to keep it but I wonder if it will be removed. Thanks for the wording. I bet you anything it'll get taken out though :P Timeshift 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matthew was a prominent supporter of Dean Brown's leadership over the the Liberal Party against John Olsen

message: Also, if Waymat is Wayne Matthew himself, or a close supporter, he should refrain from editing the article except for obvious facts like date of birth etc. I refer to the page Wikipedia:Autobiography (bold is my emphasis):
:It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself. However, in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revert vandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism, and not just a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. However, be prepared that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. 
I would submit that whether or not Matthew was a "moderate" is a "content dispute" so it is not appropriate for Matthew to edit that. Rocksong 05:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... I honestly cannot believe I did not make the connection between Wayne Matthew and Way Mat... well that does make it quite interesting. Oh well, the citation is there. Timeshift 05:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Waymat Wayne Matthew?

message: Wayne Matthew is a strong and outspoken critic of political factional behaviour. I have witnessed him speaking against factionalism at public meetings. He is strictly non-factional. I recall that late last year he wrote a letter to the editor of the daily newspaper correcting an article that aligned him (along with other MPs) with a faction. To describe him as being factioned is either uninformed, spreading wrong information from another source or just plain mischievous. Tellasis 01:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite to the contrary or leave current citation as is. Timeshift 02:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only cite we have for him as a "moderate" is http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/bright.htm . I've no idea how reliable pollbludger.com is - he is, after all, a blogger who answers to no one. My vote is to remove that bit, especially since his resignation/demotion under Olsen says the same thimg almost. Rocksong 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The other contentious bit is a factual dispute: whether he was dumped from Cabinet in 1996 (as stated by Antony Green at http://abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/departingmps.htm ) or whether he resigned (as stated on Matthew's own website at http://bright.org.au/chrono~1.htm ) (Or a 3rd alternative: he was pushed, i.e. resigned to avoid being sacked). As a real face and employed by the ABC, I regard Green as a pretty reliable source. But nor do I see why Matthew would lie about it. Until we can get a definitive answer, I suggest putting a footnote to the two alternative points of view. However I don't see that in the Wikipedia guide (e.g. at Wikipedia:Disputed statement, so perhaps someone can suggest another way forward. Rocksong 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would find that acceptable. Leave it there as it has been cited, however also note that it is a disputed statement. Good outcome for all. Timeshift 08:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute Continued

message: Sorry to rehash this, but we need to create a section with the exact title "Disputed" for the "dubious" tag to work.
In December 1996, soon after John Olsen displaced Dean Brown as SA Liberal leader and premier, Wayne Matthew went to the backbench. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether he was sacked, or resigned. (Or a 3rd alternative: he was pushed, i.e. resigned to avoid being sacked). According to Antony Green at http://abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/departingmps.htm , he was "dumped". According to Matthew's own website at http://bright.org.au/chrono~1.htm , he resigned. As a real face and employed by the ABC, I regard Green as a pretty reliable source. But nor do I see why Matthew would lie about it. I'd like to see another source one way or another to settle this. 
Ther is also a dispute over whether it is correct to call Matthew a "moderate". Rocksong 13:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew might not want it to go on his wikipedia page that he was disputably dumped. But yes another source on this either way would be good. In regards to moderate, i'd have thought that would be a compliment. Matthew didn't push any conservative views AFAIK and did indeed support Dean Brown's leadership over Olsen. But again, sources would be good. Is it possible to contact pollbludger? Timeshift 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Poll Bludger is a decent source as far as psephologists go - I'd put it not far behind Antony Green himself. That said, I don't think the statement there is concrete enough to label Matthew a moderate in the broader picture of Liberal factionalism in the face of argument to the contrary. Without any evidence that he's partaken in factional battles, I think there's no need to mention it here. Rebecca 05:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew may not have pushed conservative views but he did oppose the 1995 bills to decriminalise (or at least regulate) euthanasia and prostitution (as did most Liberals including Dean Brown, and Mike Rann, see Hansard #270795). I also remember him speaking out against easy access to 1-900 numbers for minors - the sort of concern usually (though not exlusively) taken up by conservatives. Accordingly I don't think the "moderate" tag is particularly helpful or accurare. "Brown supporter" does not automatically mean "moderate" (or vice versa, e.g. Joan Hall). Rocksong 00:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I wouldn't exactly call concerns about youth easy access to 1-900 numbers conservative... I am sure many Labor and Greens would also have concerns. If Matthew isn't a moderate, and he's not a conservative, what is he? Exactly inbetween? But really, we are splitting hairs now and I am quite happy to leave the page as is. Timeshift 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for coming late to the party here (for those not familiar with me, I am a.k.a. The Poll Bludger, a.k.a. a decent source as far as psephologists go) but I did not say Matthew was a "moderate" and concur with Rocksong's assessment that this should not necessarily be inferred from the fact that he supported Brown. Factional alignments are not always as rigid as that, particularly on the conservative side of politics. And not even in the ALP - the last two federal Labor leadership votes have produced splits within the factions, most notably when the Ferguson brothers went separate ways in the Latham vs Beazley contest of December 2003. William Bowe 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Normally I wouldn't re-hash something that's dead and buried, but came across this... http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s1602037.htm - interesting article on factionalism after the election regarding the Liberals. Timeshift 16:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200205/s563754.htm Rocksong 07:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article on [[Iain Evans]] page that says it all