Talk:AWB Limited

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for AWB Limited:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Describe the operation and reasons for the single desk Ownership structure: A class shares owned by growers have control B class shares owned by investors History of Australian Wheat Board before privatisation Other businesses owned by AWB Infobox picture List directors and senior managers?

Portal	AWB Limited 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

1 New article
2 Australian Wheat Board vs AWB Limited
3 Crikey timeline
4 "AWB Ltd." vs "AWB Limited"

[edit] New article

I think there should probably be a new article named "AWB oil-for-food scandal" which I'll start if I have the time. Georgeslegloupier 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That's possible, but I'd leave it here until there's a significant body of info to move. This may still turn out to be a storm in a teacup, or it might turn out big enough that it shouldn't have AWB in the name. If you're going to write enough to start with, go ahead and make it an article. (how's that for ambivalence?) --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's going to be plenty big. At this stage, it's probably better at wiki-news. We can create a new article here once things settle down. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This event undoubtedly deserves its own article, but does anyone have a preferred title? I'm thinking AWB Oil-for-Food scandal would be appropriate, Brendanfox 09:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you intend to keep it that narrow? How about Australian oil-for-food scandal or Australian wheat to Iraq scandal? It seems likely to include government or DFAT staff, and possibly other companies. None of the other allegations and investigations in Oil-for-Food Programme have subarticles yet to cheat off a naming scheme. Pick any name for now. The article can be moved later when we see what it ends up being about. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fresh thought for the morning - what about Cole enquiry or Cole Enquiry? --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Cole enquiry is the best title for now, if anyone wants to start it in the mean time, otherwise I'll get it started in the next day or two, Brendanfox 01:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was about to start it but I couldn't resist statring 'The Cole enquiry is a textbook example of the the Australian political truism "Never set up an inquiry unless you already know the outcome". Albatross2147 22:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Wheat Board vs AWB Limited

I renamed this article from Australian Wheat Board to AWB Limited, as the article is mostly about the modern company, not the historic agency. I've changed all the links to it that are definitely to the company, but have left the ones that mean the old wheat board or that I'm not sure of. The two I don't know are

Could somebody who knows either fix them or comment here that they should be left please? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In some ways, I'm includined to prefer the old name, with a redirect from this page, as it's the more commonly used. Pending other people's input on that, I'll update those two pages. The events under discussion stradle the change from public ownership to (technically if in practice not completely private) private ownership, so I think everything should point directly here, whereever here is. :-) Regards, Ben Aveling 01:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if commentators and even the pollies are slack and refer to AWB Limited as "the Board". It is a company which is an entirely different legal entity to the old Australian Wheat Board. We should try to be accurate with nomenclature. In any event AWB Limited carries on an entirely different character of business to the old Board ie. the sale of wheat overseas is but one part of its business activities. Albatross2147 12:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly about AWB Limited, and that is a different entity to the former Australian Wheat Board. The current scandal appears likely to span both entities though. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the scandal then have its own article? Albatross2147 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been convinced of that above, but I don't intend to start it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crikey timeline

Crikey.com.au have put together a very nice timeline of 24 key events in the sanction busting scandle. Adding it to the article verbatim would be a copyvio. Rewording it would hide the fact that it's a copy vio, but I still think it would be plagarism. Suggestions please? Ben Aveling 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)