Talk:Andrew Wilkie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or 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] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	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	Andrew Wilkie is maintained by 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Could the anonymous author of various edits (a) get themselves a login and (b) follow Wikipedia policy (eg no weasel words, neutral point of view)? m.e. 09:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

M.E, I fail to see what your objection to my edit is. Exactly what information Wilkie was privy too IS classified. And the accuracy of his book has been called into question (read Andrew Bolt if you dont believe me).

Hell, even a poll on the Australian Green's website showed a substanial majority doesn't believe Wilkie. http://www.greens.org.au/wilkie

And M.E last time I checked, it was not complusory to get a login.

No, But it gives you more credibility if you want to do edits that are going to be contested for one reason or another.

The claim that the information in Wilkie's book is classifed seems extremely unlikley. If so, why hasn't he been arrested for revealing classified information? Wilkie and his publishers would have had a team of lawyers and experts go over the book before publication to make sure that no classified information was contained therein.

Quoting Bolt as a source of criticism is highly dubious as you have provided no specific details. Bolts' credibilty is unlike Wiklie's, highly comprimised. e.g. Festering Andrew Bolt contagion exposed

Bolt, I think unlike Wilkie, has been the subject of Federal Police investigations regarding leaked classified information.

The "poll" on the Greens web site is not valid evidence as it is completely unscientific and it is in no way possible to extropolate those results as valid across the population. --Wm 05:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that Wilkie's book contained classified material. I'm saying that what information Wilkie was privy too when he was an Analyst is classified.

Nor am I saying that Bolt and/or the poll mean that Wilkie is lieing. They merely mean that some people dont believe him. The way the article is written at present, all of Wilkie's claims are accepted as fact. The only source of these claims is of course Wilkie himself. --203.17.44.84 08:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

This article is currently stating all of Wilkie's claims as facts. His motives are also stated as facts.

The two links under "See Also" are unrelated to Wilkie himself and just seem to be links to entries with NPOV issues written from a similar viewpoint.

The paragraph heading "2003: private dilemma" is not suitable as the paragraph contains the phrase "Wilkie gave extensive television interviews and accepted numerous offers of public speaking engagements" - hardly a private dilemma.

The Australian Government's statements about Wilkie's claims are not quoted.

In fact the word "claim" is used only once (correctly) to describe the use of the intelligence by the Australian, British and U.S. governments to justify the war on Iraq.

A previous edit stating that the accuracy of Wilkie's book, Axis of deceit, had been questioned has been deleted (reason given was "remove POV edit" by m.e.).

--Motleyfool 23:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm reading his book and I cannot see any classified information, although a good knowledge of Iraq and the region. As per July 2006 all the facts he exposes are true, have become reallity and if people choose not to believe hard evidences then they may choose not to believe that the Earth is round.

[edit] Liberal Party and Greens membership

The article incorrectly states that Wilkie rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He only rose to the rank of Major.

The article contains the line "he became a member of the Liberal Party. Wilkie has reportedly since let his membership lapse", while later noting that he stood for the seat of Bennelong as a Greens candidate. I'm not au fait with the Greens electoral regulations but I can confidently state the following:

• Most political parties require you to be a member to stand as a candidate; and
• Most parties (presumably including the Greens) require you not to be member of any other political party.

Therefore I would say that Wilkie has almost certainly let his membership lapse. --Roisterer 17:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wilkie's membership of the Liberal party lapsed quite some time ago, well before he joined the Greens. I don't have a reference for this however Peter C Talk! 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)