Talk:Cole Inquiry

Comments

The story really needs a decent time line ( I haven't seen any complete ones in the media) , a list of main players e.g. Bronte Moules , the person from the U.N. who examined the AWB's contracts, who was who in the AWB ,intelligence reports ( from the Australian O.N.A ) and links to the general topic of corruption ( and to its theoretical aspects : general conclusions about risk management and corruption) , whether the previous government( Keating) would have picked this up and to other countries investigations of matters related to the Volcker inquiry. BillO'Slatter 03:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The section Lies Exposed appears to be sensationalised and opinionated.

Review the heading making sure that it fits with the content. In particular the lines "Either Alexander has Lied to Parliament, or on oath at the Cole enquiry which is clearly a breach of law." and "Clearly the government is negligent of knowing." seem to be portraying more opinion than fact

I agree. The editor is putting forward their own opinion, and given the whole section is entitled "lies exposed" despite Commissioner Cole not yet concluding if any lies have been told, I removed the section until such time as lies have been independently verified, rather than in the eyes of an anonymous editor. Mike2680 03:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV & cleanup

Whatever people may think about the current Australian Federal Government and its policy and decision history, this article is not the place to do it. Some cleanup is also needed. Therefore, I've placed the {POV} and {cleanup-date} tags at the top of the article.

I reckon an expert will have to sit down and write a nice, clear article regarding the Inquiry once it's all over. Should we ask a couple of journalists - one from News Ltd, one from Fairfax - to do this? Sentinel75 00:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Is this article writing the conclusions before they've been formally published? Sentinel75 00:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from Cole Report

I've added a redirect from Cole Report to this page, as the report is now being referred to this way in the media. Shermozle 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Cole Inquiry → Inquiry into certain Australian companies in relation to the UN Oil-For-Food Programme – Official name for this Inquiry is the proposed new name; located here. The Cole Inquiry is the more casual use of the inquiry's name. It also assists in disambiguating from the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, sometimes called the Cole Royal Commission. It seems silly that we use the full title for one Royal Commission, but the casual name for the other. Rangasyd (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as the argument seems to ignore WP:COMMONNAME. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Cole Inquiry (Oil-For-Food Programme) maybe, but not the proposed title -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Cole Royal Commission should redirect somewhere. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• I'm going to trust in WP:CONCISE for this. Oppose, though I respect the point made in the nomination. A hatnote would be a great idea. Red Slash 04:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Cole Royal Commission now redirects to Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. Rangasyd (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cole Inquiry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602222931/http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/UNOilForFoodInquiry.nsf to http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/www/UNoilforfoodinquiry.nsf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)