Talk:Nick Xenophon/Archive 1

Speculation

Would it be worthwhile putting up a synthesis of speculation in the media as the Xenophon's unusual success? I think there is a discussion point here about how South Australian's feel about their parties and what attracts them in such numbers to an independent like Xenophon. At the moment we only have one sentence about media stunts, but it is more than that I am sure. --150.203.2.85 08:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to expand that sentence. :) I feel that it is Nick's down-to-earth apporach, the fact that he won't take the perks of being re-elected into the Upper House and he just seems like an honest guy. I know that there isn't really a way of adding that to the page, as it is just my opinion but hopefully we could site a source.

I read in a few articles just after the election, where Nick explained why he thought he got so many votes. I'll look for it.

And good job on the page so far. I promised myself that if he made it in again that I would make his page, but someone beat me to it. :P --Rachel Cakes 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I added an explanation to my blog a while back. Tell me if you think it's any good and worth adding: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19280825&postID=114285659181195113 . --59.167.147.127 13:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly he is perceived as being very honest and hardworking. The Democrats candidate in Norwood David Winterlich wrote a bit more negative-sounding article about Xenophon though for the daily Crikey.com.au rag (Monday 27 March news) which you could quote. Since it's not available online, I'm pasting it here. He paints a slightly less rosy picture of Xenophon but as far as I'm concerned it serves the Democrats right for completely missing out on a spot in the upper house themselves because their preferences also blocked out Xenophon! All the lockout did though was to stop his party getting a third place though. Of course this article is copyrighted, but I only paste it here for research purposes, not publication. We can delete it later as necessary. -- Donama 01:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

18. Xenophon the opportunist - David Winderlich, wildly unsuccessful Democrat candidate for Norwood and former refugee advocate, writes: Nick Xenophon's initiative to open his books is most welcome. And his rapid response to rumours about financial funny business shows that he is not going to rest on his laurels. But for some years now I have seen him as a rampant populist. He'll fight for the little man – but only if the little man is acceptable to the broader community. I know this because in 2001 I met with Nick to ask him to speak up for refugees. He didn't want to touch them. It was post 9/11 and Mosques were getting bombed. So I asked him to speak up for Muslims. He was prepared to put his name to a list but only after other prominent people had done so. Since then he has astutely jumped on every emerging interest group from residents resisting infill to the land tax revolt currently underway. He regularly chairs public meetings for these interest groups. I stand to be corrected but I don't think he has ever spoken out against the law and order auction that has been underway for the last four years. And now he has teamed up with a woman with strong links to the Festival of Light, Ann Bressington. A lot of Greens, Democrats and Labor people voted for Nick and even staffed his polling booths. I suspect he soaked up the progressive protest vote which would presumably have otherwise gone to the Greens and to a much lesser extent, the Democrats. He is brilliant although he has had some (presumably expensive help). Look for the payments to PR companies when he opens his books. Nick has done some good things for people who were ignored by other parties. His Industrial Manslaughter Bill is probably the biggest contribution. But it remains to be seen whether he will play any part in tackling big issues like climate change or standing up for civil liberties in our increasingly terrorized state. If he does, then all power to him. If he doesn't, then a lot of progressive voters will have been Xenoconned.

The "Industrial Manslaughter Bill" to which Winterlich refers is presumably the Asbestos legislation, right? My personal opinion is that the asbestos legislation was the single biggest reason for Xenophon's success: it was popular, close to the election, and showed him standing up for a just cause when other politicians wouldn't. However I haven't seen any poll data so that's just my analysis, not anyone else's. IOW, I'm not sure whether to add it to the main article. Rocksong 05:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rocksong, you're definitely right. Many other news sources made the same comment about Xenophon's contribution to helping asbestos victims. Just cite the Crikey article in the main article. — Donama 22:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a very good article to read and I wholeheartedly agree with it - whilst Xenophon is good to have as an independent and I do think it's good he remains there, I also heavily agree that he is populist - and to see that he doesnt want to touch refugee or muslim issues with a 10 foot poll only highlights it. Good find! Timeshift 04:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unimportant (?) Facts

I'm doing a second revert on the Atkinson quote. I don't doubt it's true, but what's the point? If Xenophon polled 4% below the Libs statewide, it's hardly surprising that he outpolled them in a strong Labor electorate like Atkinson's. IMHO, it's the sort of unimportant fact that clutters too many Wikipedia articles. Rocksong 05:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you were reverted because you didn't explain the deletion. I'm not sure I agree. So, let Wikipedia be cluttered, so long as the clutter is at the end of the article. Not everybody knows enough about SA politics to be able to know Atkinson's electorate is so safe for Labor. Why not assist understanding by leaving it in. And to me it seems a matter of personal judgement as to whether it's surprising or not too. If you think this sentence is putting too much spin on Xenophon's success in that electorate then perhaps point this out in the article. What do you say? — Донама 08:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with Rocksong now. Considering they were so close to the Liberals statewide, it's hardly surprising that they'd have outpolled them in some booths. Ambi 08:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not about spin, it's about making an article which is relevant and readable. It's a single data point, from one politician, based on one electorate, as heard on ABC radio. It's like listing all the brands of lollies he had sewed into his jacket for his cinema stunt. It's far too detailed and out of place for an article of half a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps if it said "in some booths he even outpolled the Liberals" with a footnote on the source, it'd be OK. But whatever; if other people are happy it can stay in. Rocksong 11:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think people are seeing the big picture here which is to contrast the strong success of the No Pokies ticket with the failure of the Liberals to mount any serious challenge to Labor - sure it doesn't matter that a few booths had Xenophon polling higher, but what it does point out is that no doubt, across the electorates, some polling booths will have had Xenophon polling higher. There will be no way it just happened in Croydon. To show labors or liberals particular up or down at the time when looking at the election from an historical point of view, I think it is important to show Xenophon outpolled the Liberals. If they win the 2010 election it will show how much they improved during this time. To remove it is picky, it's not as if the page is cluttered at the moment as it is. Would it satisfy people if "(safe labor)" was added before where it says "electorate had Xenophon polling higher than the Liberals"? Also have corrected the percentage.Timeshift 05:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the big picture is that Xenophon outpolled the Libs in some electorates. What I don't like is that the comment is limited to Atkinson's electorate. If he outperformed them there, he doubtless outperformed them in other electorates also. That's why I suggested the broader comment "in some booths he even outpolled the Liberals", with a footnote giving Atkinson as the source. But heck, this has escalated into a big debate over a single sentence (my fault I admit), way out of proportion to how much I care, so this'll probably be my last comment on it. Rocksong 07:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can see your point that it gives the impression that it may only be limited to that electorate. I am happy for it to be rephrased as seen fit but would prefer to keep that fact there for reasons already stated. Timeshift

Last edit

How is Foley's altercation with Xenophon not worthy of a mention? Why the revert? Timeshift 08:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because politicians have hundreds of minor little points throughout their lives but must of these deserve a mention. If every little comment / scuffle / alteration a politician was involved in was presented it wouldn't be comprehensive - it would be a mess. The problem of a news article being printed and then a wikipedian adding a little one liner to an article is something that needs to be dealt with. michael ^talk 09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem? Timeshift 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just think about what the article would be like if every time a ews article came out about the topic at hand and a one-liner was added. This alteration is not worthy of addition. michael ^talk 09:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02: I support Rebecca's revert. IMHO it deserves mention in Foley's article but not Xenophon's. The drunken assault is newsworthy and reflects badly on Foley, but Xenophon (by all reports) was only the victim and I don't think it deserves mention here. Rocksong 13:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Errors in Carr link

As I mention in the article, the Carr link (1997 election result) has errors: he gets the Labor + Liberal seat numbers wrong (they got 4 each, not 5 and 3), and the lists of elected members are wrong also. I emailed Adam a while back. He acknowledged my email but hasn't fixed it. I assume because he can't find any better data. Rocksong 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Check my talk page under '1997 election'... the data is on http://www.abc.net.au/elections/sa/2006/guide/lchistory.htm and Adam Carr knows about it and has acknowledged it, but doesn't seem to want to fix it, or has simply forgotten about it... Timeshift 08:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Carr is extremely prejudiced and dishonest. You can't rely on his site for election results. He doesn't recognise any results that he doesn't like. Carl Kenner 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Xenophon voted for hansard censorship

I actually think that whilst it does not warrant a contribution on every MLCs wiki page, I think it does deserve it on this one. Nick prides himself as a free voice for the people, in other words a populist, wanting to drive pollies crazy as his election posters said... yet he votes in favour of hansard suppression. As voltaire once said, I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it. Timeshift 15:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, except Voltaire didn't say it. It was made up by a biographer 100 years after his death. And it was a dopey, insipid statement anyway, IMO ;-)

Sorry, forgot the tildes Leo 15:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a bit of an edit war happening on the Xenophon and Bressington pages over whether to include their vote on suppressing Kanck's speech from the Hansard web version. I agree it looks out of place on their pages, but I also agree that the information deserves to be somewhere on Wikipedia. In fact, I think all interesting/controversial votes deserve to be on Wikipedia. Therefore I propose a page with a title something like "Voting Records in the South Australian Parliament". Each paragraph could briefly describe the bill (with a link as appropriate), with a summary of who voted each way. It could also be done for the Australian parliament, and make interesting reading for things like conscience votes, or issues decided by independents or renegades. Comments? Rocksong 07:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But the problem with that is big issues like hansard suppression, in a page like that, would simply get drowned out by everything else there. I happen to think this issue (unprecedented hansard suppression) should appear on some but not all. I believe it should be on Sandra Kanck, Mike Rann and Bob Sneath as michael suggested, however I also believe it should be on Xenophon's, Bressingtons, Mark Parnells (Green), and the two Family First MLCs. They are the "independents" (for want of a better collective term) who are not bound by Labor/Liberal party voting lines, with the exception of Rann and Sneath, but they are for obvious reasons. They have voted for hansard suppression (bar Parnell) and it should be stated in their profile. Timeshift 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it can possibly be worse than the situation as it stands now, where the Wikipedia contents depends on (a) what people decide is worth recording, and (b) whose pages they remember/decide to put them on. Plus, as the number of controversial votes increases, the pages become a mess. If the controversial/contentious votes are all in one place I content that they will not be drowned out, rather they will be easy to find. And they only need to be recorded once. Rocksong 08:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I tell you what. I start a page like that anyway (both SA and Aust versions), if I get the time and motivation. If it proves useful, voting information can be migrated off individual pages at a later date. Rocksong 08:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this as a petty, irrelevant issue that splashed onto the tabloids because of the poor quality of political life in general (anyone who has read the speech would know how off-key the coverage is). I'm completely in favour of mentioning the debacle on Kanck's page; however, I consider the issue irrelevant on the pages of the other MP's (which, for the most part, are barely more than stubs) and the only reason I suggested it go on the other pages was so I could throw a bone and not get bitten (again). Xenophon is an unashamed and avowed populist, he'll stand for any issue that looks good; his vote on this issue is irrelevant.

Are we going to add a new "this MP voted this way on this matter" line every time an MP votes a particular way in the latest 'controversial' issue?

A page listing votes would be extremely cumbersome—MPs vote on dozens to hundreds of issues every day (some petty, some not so petty). Both the scope of the proposed article, and the process that would decide what issues are worth including, would be very difficult to manage. michael ^talk 08:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. Both ideas – to include the voting records in each and every MP article and to create an article for voting records themselves – are contrary to encyclopædic coverage. It is making a value-judgement – and thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR – to arbitrarily decide that a few MPs' positions with regards to an issue centred entirely on Sandra Kanck warrants special mention.--cj | talk 08:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For a voting record article, no value judgement is required. Ignore votes which pass unanimously (the vast majority), and include the votes which are not unanimous. Those votes are, by definition, contentious. Possibly petty or a waste of time, but certainly not a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. Rocksong 12:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Rocksong. Timeshift 12:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I still can't believe that people aren't seeing it for the bigger picture - hansard suppression. Timeshift 08:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, hansard suppression related to a Kanck speech. So mention it on her page. michael ^talk 08:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Michael on this. While it makes me angry, it only really belongs on the Kanck page, and perhaps on Hansard or a related page. Rebecca 09:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement with Michael. It is only relevent to articles about Kanck or Hansard. misanthrope

Yes, Hansard suppression related to Kanck, but instigated by Rann and some party heavies, supported by Family First (who usually don't vote with Labor), and the Independents - one a populist, and the other avowedly anti-euthanasia. One the other side we have Libs and Greens who are unlikely political bedfellows. Leo 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and we get all of that precedence and controversy at the cost of a sentence or two on pages that are as boring as batshit. IMHO. Leo 11:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

C'est la vie. misanthrope

I'm sure we'll find a compromise eventually. C'est la guerre. ;-) Leo 14:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stateline

Stateline is doing a piece on Xenophon's bid for the Senate at 7:30 (10 minutes time, at time of posting) Timeshift 09:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

They are speaking with Xen and Natasha and a journalist FWIW. Timeshift 10:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting watch. That's now Natasha and Antony Green thinking he'll get in. Timeshift 10:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Missed it. But the transcript should turn up here soon: http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/default.htm, and may make a useful addition to the article. Peter Ballard 10:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to Workchoices

I'm really sorry, but I deleted "opposition to workchoices" from his platform, since I didn't see any sign of that, and I read most of the articles about him, and the supposed reference didn't mention it. If that is genuinely part of his platform then I sincerely appologise. Carl Kenner 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take it as a geniune mistake. It's in the Age link,[1] but you need to keep reading to page 2. Peter Ballard 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. I didn't read it very carefully. Sorry. There is an Advertiser interview that contradicts that though. I suspect he is trying to play both sides of that issue. I'll see if I can find it... Carl Kenner 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove what is cited. And I doubt he is trying to play both sides of that issue, Xenophon is a populist and would never support WorkChoices. Timeshift 15:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Policies link

Why are we deciding to remove the link for Xen's policies when we are not doing the same for Family First? Primary links are not issues as long as the article isn't framed around those primary links. Timeshift 08:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, (though I'd lean to excluding it, since his official site is already in the External links section)... but where is it in the Family First article? Peter Ballard 09:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I was unable to locate it upon looking now too. But I found out why it is no longer there, and does the reason why it's no longer there surprise me? Nope. Why do I feel like we're getting new Joestellas in Prester and Brendon? Timeshift 09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In their defence, WP:External links#Important points to remember says (point 3), "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website". In both cases (Nick X and FF) the policies are a single click from the main page. The deletions are probably OK. Peter Ballard 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be OK to use the link as a citation for a description of what the policies are. However, it shouldn't be stuck into the article in isolation as a substitute for a NPOV description - obviously a political candidate's website isn't going to give an unbiased view of their policies. I've just tagged the Family First article as needing third-party references for its section on the party's policies. --Nick Dowling 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The link for Xenophon's polices (being similar to those of Family First) would be the Independent Weekly article "Do You Really Know This Man?"(I think). This article was printed in South Australia prior to the last federal election. Apart from that I don't know where on the internet citation articles would be found to support this statement. The policies concerned are not on his website, so I can't simply link there. It is difficult to prove what his policies are, if they are not spelt out in the public domain(? maybe they are somewhere on the net?). I think there is room for opinion in Wikipedia articles- Xenophon's policies are an issue that has otherwise gone unnoticed in the mainstream media. The policies are kept quiet, as his vote might be affected if they were publicised too much. Sometimes a supporting citation is really only the opinion of a respected journalist or other person, anyway. I still think it is very relevant to this article, so could somebody please find evidence for his policies being similar to those of Family First? As the Wikipedia guidelines say, there are very few real facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.158.170 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not room for opinion in Wikipedia article. WP:OR. Also WP:SOAP. Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - see also WP:V - we should be using facts from peer-reviewed, published sources. If they're not out there already, we can't just speculate on them. Orderinchaos 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is supported opinion. Not just my own opinion. Would it be better to say "Xenophon's policies are considered by a journalist of Independent Weekly (South Australia) to be very close to those of Family First"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.158.170 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nick Xenophon: Well, I'm a bit more reluctant to support gay marriage. But that's something I'm happy to talk to people about. I think the main thing is to remove discrimination - so, perhaps I'm not as libertarian as some, but I'm certainly not a social conservative as Brian Harradine."[2] (or Family First). Or, "Xenophon had previously supported de facto reforms in South Australia. But Family First Senator Steve Fielding has joined with the Coalition to block every equality or gay-supportive motion introduced since he entered Parliament in 2004."[3] Now take your WP:OR and WP:SOAP elsewhere thanks. Timeshift (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What got Sarah Hanson-Young elected?

Considering the lack of movement in the primary vote in the Greens in SA, whose preferences were the main contributor? Xenophon? Labor? Timeshift (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ageing hippies and young radicals, but besides that, our friend Antony has a spiffy little rundown here. Michael ^talk 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Young radicals lol. That page confuses me. Timeshift (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Social conservative capitalist-sceptics pro-Labor people like my parents who vote 1 above the line and don't know anything about preferences . If most of the Asians and maybe older Italian/Greek immigrant type social-conservative Labor voters knew what SHY got up to when she was leading the Adelaide Uni Union, then they wouldn't vote for her. I told my parents what she did and they would definitely not have voluntarily voted for her if they knew how preferences worked. I'm sure most other immigrants from socially conservative backgrounds wouldn't if they knew either.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure liberals for forests supporters didn't want their preferences to elect Steve Fielding either. But that's what group voting tickets do. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, except LibForests only get some % < 3% of the vote....you never know, some of those LibF might be social conservative enviro ppl. Juding by their name, I would guess they are...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

small-l's arent necessarily social conservatives. Also, SA Greens got over 6%, FF in 2004 in Vic got under 2%. That's 12% in preferences. BTW, in the Senate SHY got my 1st vote with Xenophon getting my 2nd, so i'm happy. Pref'd the rest of the greens ticket, then Labor (Penny Wong down, skipped Farrell). Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. My ranking of SHY was specifically lowered by my personal observations of her at uni...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear, care to be specific? BTW the Greens vote along party lines, so as long as I agree with Bob Brown, the Greens candidate gets my vote (big change from 2004 for me). Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, not on-wiki, I don't want to get in trouble for BLP if I publish my primary source OR (BLP applies to the talk page as well). Having said that I wouldn't be surprised if a few ALP guys did the same type of stuff when they were at uni. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You could always use 'email this user' :-) Timeshift (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has heard S H-Y speak would know she's a barking socialist in the vein of Nettle. She's no social democrat. Her voice is enough to send people running for the trenches and I find these comparisons with the 'Tash absolutely absurd. Michael ^talk 03:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You should have seen her in action in late 2002 when John Howard opened the Petroleum Engineering department at Adelaide Uni. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you base a person's political orientation on their voice? BTW I heard her voice repeatedly, selling herself on FreshFM prior to the election. (good to know the right also suffer from talk page slander :) Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rigged On Dit election - yawn

Is that - or anything else in the rabble which is student union politics - really worthy of inclusion? He was 17 years old! Should we also mention how many detentions he got in school? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

His election to the position was rigged by Young Liberals and is cited. Of course it's worthy of inclusion. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What makes it worthy? My argument is that something silly someone does when they are 17 is NN. Why do you think it's notable? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Australian found it noteable enough for the majority of an article to be about it. I'll point out with a smile that nobody objected to him being the editor of On Dit when some contributor added it ages ago. You didn't raise the issue then. So you have one of two choices - you take issue with the inclusion of his editorship as well as the rigging as non noteable despite not having raised objection earlier - or - you take issue with the rigging but believe it is still ok to mention On Dit. Which one? Timeshift (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not notable either way. Some On Dit eds bragged that they used the compulsory student union fees on buying illicit drugs and porn magazines. As for "tricking" people, that is normal in student politics. Your wording makes that it sound as though they beat up the opposition or registered dead people or something. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, just Young Liberals voting on behalf of others on the roll. And I could refer to the citation that Xenophon confessed to this, but it's all the same to you isn't it. For once just try to be an unbiased admin... just once. Timeshift (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I second those comments about all sorts of rubbish happening in student politics.

I had no problem with On Dit editor being there because it was a colourless couple of words. I hardly noticed it. But now the emphasis is all wrong - it's all about the rigged election. We could balance it by saying how Xenophon says he knew nothing (which I doubt) and regretted the incident (which I believe), or we could shorten it to something like "in a controversial election" (with the ref for further reading for anyone who cares). But as it stands, the balance is wrong. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"We could balance it by saying how Xenophon says he knew nothing (which I doubt) and regretted the incident (which I believe)" - doubt and believe? Is this WP:OR? After what you've already said above? Incredible. Reword it, but it's a fascinating goalpost shift from complete exclusion. Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously "doubt"/"believe" are my personal opinions and don't go in the article. My point is that you've got to put in so much detail to present it fairly that it ends up taking a disproportionate part of the article, so far better is to just say there was controversy and let the reader read the ref if they care about it. As for "goalpost shift", I prefer to call it compromise :) Peter Ballard (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy for a factual compromise. It seems however, predictably, that Blnguyen won't take to any mention of a Young Lib rigged election whatsoever. Timeshift (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

First, can I ask anyone who deletes information to bring the information to the talk page. When the subject matter is deleted from the article, it makes it harder to match up the references to what is being discussed on the talk page. Thanks. /// On the contest rigging incident, on what is said in The Australian article, the relevance of the incident is beyond dispute. In the article, Julian Glynn cites the incident as the moment Xenophon decided the Liberals were not for him. MP Michael O'Brien said the incident was an early lesson in politics for Xenophon. The journalist calls the incident a turning point. Xenophon says the incident made him realise politics was not for him. It seems the Young Liberal aspect is necessary to get the context. Editors here may call the incident trivial, but the quotes in the article show it is not. --Lester 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is suitable and has been added, as only one contributor argues full exclusion from the article:

In 1977 while at University he was for a period a member of the Young Liberals, and secured the editorship of the student newspaper On Dit, a position Xenophon gained via the rigging of a vote recount by Young Liberals, citing his published confession on June 25, 1978 explaining his regrets and lack of knowledge over the incident.

I can't see how anyone would take issue with that, unless they wanted to keep the entire incident out alltogether, but I wonder why anyone would want to do that...? Let's just go over what the article says:

Xenophon would... blow the whistle on what he breathlessly called "one of the biggest scandals" going: the rigging of the student vote that had delivered him his first position of prominence.

To Xenophon's credit, he doesn't try to shy away from the vote rigging episode. In fact, he went out of his way to produce the dog-eared copy of On Dit containing his published confession on June 25, 1978. "It sort of makes me cringe reading it," he explains. "You know, with the writing style and what happened and all the rest of it." The episode was nevertheless a turning point: "When it came to the crunch I realised machine politics wasn't for me."

On initial results, Xenophon came up a handful of votes short of clinching the On Dit role. A recount was ordered, which he won by four votes. Over drinks at the uni bar, he learned that ballot papers had been forged in his favour.

So is the proposed/added wording ok? If not what needs changing. Exclusion of it quite simply isn't an option here, i'm sure none of us want to take the RfC route etc. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The shorter mention appears suitable. I agree it shouldn't hog the article, but it does seem to have been an important milestone in his political development. Might want to make the wording a little clearer though... with "gained" where it is it sounds like *he* rigged the vote. Oh, and he was either 18 or 19 when this took place, in response to claims at the top of this section - not that it makes much difference, but it's good to have the right facts in front of us :) Orderinchaos 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded, also mentioned it was rigged on the recount, as he initially fell short. Also, on a side note, the article suffers from WP:RECENTISM as it is - only a few lines in Pre-political life. So perhaps ballooning would be a good thing. Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos: according to the ref, the vote was held in 1976 when he was 17. Anyway, the paragraph (before the edit I just did) was a bit better, but to my mind there's still too much detail (do we really need the date of his "confession"?). I've had a go at editing it myself (see diff here [4]), to remove what I see as unnecessary detail, and mention the effect on Xenophon. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Archive 1: "...Now take your WP:OR and WP:SOAP elsewhere thanks. Timeshift (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)"

I seriously doubt that the Independent Weekly would print that some of his policies are very close to those of the Family First party, if there were not some truth to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.139.174 (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon and Fielding are quite different. Xenophon supports in full the government changes to LGBT rights - Fielding does not and continues not to give his support to it. Xenophon has been reported in the media as centrist to left of centre, and is far more accommodating to government legislation in unaltered or amended form - Fielding has opposed almost everything. But this does not relate to article improvement - what point are you trying to make? Timeshift (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

--well for example, like Family First, he has been known to be pro-censorship. For example the time when he wanted to ban (or give an R-rating to) a Tamagotchi "slot" game (referred to on the Tamagotchi Wikipedia page), and his very recent comments to the ABC(as a senator) supporting the lack of an R rating for video games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.117.172 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well almost no two politicians have polar opposite opinions. They may share some ground in some areas but not others. But to say the two share a similar overall ideology is just plain wrong. Timeshift (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article, the point is that some of his success in state and federal elections can be attributed to downplay of some of his policies, and this is relevant to the article, if the purpose of Wikipedia articles is to increase peoples' knowledge of a subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.180.67 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I was only trying to say that their ideology is very similar in certain policy areas, not overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.180.67 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what I feel you are doing is WP:SOAPBOXing. I would struggle to see how criticising him in such a way helps the encyclopedia. It mentions he is big on publicity stunts. Criticising the way he supports or opposes policies would be very tricky when maintaining WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:CITE, and other such guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition to this information. I don't have a problem with the addition per se (that he didn't know it was rigged by Young Liberals), however it needs to be counterbalanced that he found out about it straight after the election, and didn't reveal it until his term as editor was up. Again, this information really should be expanded, but it seems that certain people want it as small and concise as possible, after they lost out getting it completely removed. Suggestions? Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mention on Slot machine

Just a heads up that i've made a mention of No Pokies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slot_machine#Australia as Xenophon's political success and No Pokies platform make it noteworthy. Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Above the line votes split 50-50?

Can this be clarified? If I voted for ticket 1, I voted Grn-Dem-FFP-ALP-Lib, if I voted for ticket 2, I voted FFP-Grn-Dem-Lib-ALP. How does it get split 50-50? Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"If you place the single figure 1 in one of the boxes above the line for the party or group of your choice, you will have voted according to the VOTING TICKET(S) lodged by your party or group as set out in this booklet. Where a party, group or candidate has lodged 2 or 3 VOTING TICKETS, the total number of group ticket votes received by that group or candidate will be distributed evenly in accordance with those voting tickets."

- from AEC document http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/elections/2007/gvt/SA_2007_gvt.pdf - Peter Ballard (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What the? That's crazy! So if someone voted above the line, their vote was evenly distributed? How deceptive! Glad I didn't vote ATL (not that I voted Xen 1, I put him 2 with SHY 1). Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting above the line means trusting the politician or party with your preferences. Anyone who is stupid enough to do that has no right to complain, IMHO. But Xenophon, in his defence, did publicly announced that he was doing a split. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Its introduction was driven by the two major parties to make it harder for people to vote for independents, (their "justification" was to reduce the number of informal votes - I wonder if it has?), because you can only vote above the line for "Groups", and independents are individuals and hence "ungrouped". I share Peter's opinion about trusting politicians! However, I believe that well over 90% of the population actually do vote above the line ... Ho hum. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit harsh: it doesn't make it harder to vote for independents who can find a running mate. Difficulty in Senate voting was an issue, and informal votes did go down. BUT it removes the voter's control over their preferences if they're stupid enough to vote above the line. Also, I don't think people in the 1980's anticipated the new viable parties which exist today, and the dodgy preference deals which arise because some of these parties (like Family First) don't fall neatly into the traditional left/right spectrum. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Steve Fielding wouldn't have been elected if Australia didn't use ATL. Timeshift (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the last half of my reply. There were all sorts of varied parties in the 80s too. It was dumb legislation in the 80s too. As for Fielding... you're probably right, but the Labor preferences had to go somewhere. Maybe some Labor voters don't like their preferences going to the Greens. What is for certain is that voters should choose, not the parties. As least with how-to-vote cards the process is transparent. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What would give you that impression? 75-80% of Greens votes preference Labor over the coalition, 60-65% of Family First votes preference the coalition over Labor. Not all Labor voters would prefer Greens over Family First but between the two, the majority would choose the Greens. Labor and 'liberals for forests' ATL prefs got Fielding over the line, and without ATL there would be no FFP representation in the Senate. But this is off-topic. Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, Timeshift, you're right - it is off topic. Never-the-less, I find it fascinating - not because of what is, but because of the way the major parties use and abuse it, and more particularly, the spin they put on it to justify their obvious self-interest! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter: "I think you're being a bit harsh: it doesn't make it harder to vote for independents who can find a running mate." - With respect, I think you're avoiding the point with that reply. Yes, you are correct in what you say, but that dodges my point. I think this is the first time that NickX has chosen to have a running mate. (I could be wrong.) Why did he have a running mate? So people could vote for him above the line. I don't think I'm being harsh at all. The simple facts are: 1) (Sadly), the VAST majority vote above the line. 2) To get votes above the line, you MUST have 2 or more people and form a group.

You can't vote for "real" individual independents above the line; to vote for them you are required to vote below the line, and fill in every box, and not make any mistakes. The VAST majority can't be bothered doing this. Therefore the system makes it harder for people to vote for independents.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon ran on a 'No Pokies' ATL ticket in the SA upper. Note his running mate being elected in 2006 when he got 20.5 percent of the vote. Timeshift (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Of course!! (My "excuse" is that it's Monday, and I've yet to engage my brain.) Never-the-less, not withstanding that error, I stand by the rest of what I wrote. (At least, I will until somebody points out another "Monday" error.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Xenophon is a real independent. He was the first of two candidates in his ticket. People who voted ATL for Xenophon's ticket did vote for a real independent. Timeshift (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Pdfpdf, I see your point. Nevertheless, an independent can find a running mate and get a column to themselves. I agree that this requirement compromises the voting system a little bit, but I submit that a far, far more serious issue is the way that above-the-line voting distributes preferences without (most) voters' knowledge, and that it allows dodgy preference deals between parties. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift: Oh dear. You have misinterpreted my poorly worded intent. Please ignore the word "real". Yes, I agree that NickX is a real independent, and that people who voted ATL for Xenophon's ticket did vote for a real independent.

Start again.

Why did he have a running mate? So people could vote for him above the line. I don't think I'm being harsh at all. The simple facts are: 1) (Sadly), the VAST majority vote above the line. 2) To get votes above the line, you MUST have 2 or more people and form a group.

You can't vote for individual independents above the line; to vote for them you are required to vote below the line, and fill in every box, and not make any mistakes. The VAST majority can't be bothered doing this. Therefore the system makes it harder for people to vote for individual independents.

I hope that's clearer? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Ballard: Yes, I agree. It saddens me that so few people understand the system; it really isn't all that complex ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A person cannot vote for an individual without voting for their running mate ATL, yes. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Travel bill

Xenophon has recently proposed a bill or stated he is going to introduce a bill to make sure MP's announce 'donated' trips within 60 days of taking them. Sounds like the sort of thing that might be useful to wikipedia.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it would be useful in a fuller article, the current lack of content on his work in the Senate would mean there would be significant weight issues. Timeshift (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

Material has been sourced, and added back to the article. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pre-political life In 1984, he established and became principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co. which deals solely with personal injury claims. In this field he became successful, and between 1994 and 1997 he served as president of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers' Association. After legislation was passed in 1992 by the Bannon Labor government that saw the introduction of poker machines into South Australia in 1994, the increased incidence of problem gambling came to Xenophon's attention in his legal practice. 1997 state election During his time as a sitting member, Xenophon has been an activist for a range of issues aside the elimination of pokies, speaking out on consumer rights, essential services, the environment, taxation, and perks for politicians. Xenophon was also vocal in the Eugene McGee hit-run affair, becoming an advocate for the victim's wife, with public opinion eventually forcing the Kapunda Road Royal Commission that led to harsher laws for hit-run offences. He is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts that have gained him both deep respect and ardent criticism. Xenophon has also suffered severe health difficulties that at one stage forced him to take leave. Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Per WP:BURDEN, do not add back, unless properly sourced. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Excuse me, but I will most certainly add back. That's what citation tags are for. Timeshift (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Do NOT add unsourced material to a WP:BLP, per WP:BURDEN. Cirt (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Per burden - "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the fact template, a section with unreferencedsection, or the article with refimprove or unreferenced." Reverted. Timeshift (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Standards are higher on WP:BLPs, and you know that. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC) OK Let's have a look here In 1984, he established and became principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co. which deals solely with personal injury claims. In this field he became successful, and between 1994 and 1997 he served as president of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers' Association. After legislation was passed in 1992 by the Bannon Labor government that saw the introduction of poker machines into South Australia in 1994, the increased incidence of problem gambling came to Xenophon's attention in his legal practice. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2306983.htm says: "In 1984 he set up his own law firm, Xenophon and Co, and became highly successful in the field of personal injury claims. He was galvanised into politics in the early 90s when he saw the social problems caused by the widespread introduction of poker machines." http://rotaryclub.org.au/bulletins/Bulletin060124_3496.pdf says "Since January 1984 he has been the principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co., which is a four practitioner legal practice dealing exclusively in personal injury claims. From 1994 to March 1997 he was President of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers? Association, an organisation dedicated to protecting the rights of injured victims of accidents and professional negligence" "In July 1994, following legislative changes passed by South Australian Parliament, slot machines were introduced into South Australian hotels, bars and clubs. At his practice and in the community Nick began to see the social devastation caused by slot machines". This section is fully covered. During his time as a sitting member, Xenophon has been an activist for a range of issues aside the elimination of pokies, speaking out on consumer rights, essential services, the environment, taxation, and perks for politicians. Xenophon was also vocal in the Eugene McGee hit-run affair, becoming an advocate for the victim's wife, with public opinion eventually forcing the Kapunda Road Royal Commission that led to harsher laws for hit-run offences. He is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts that have gained him both deep respect and ardent criticism. Xenophon has also suffered severe health difficulties that at one stage forced him to take leave. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2306983.htm says: "Although he ran on a no-pokies ticket when he won a seat in 1997, he has also been active in such fields as consumer rights, taxation, political perks and the environment. " http://netk.net.au/Media/2005-04-28-McGee.asp (from a Today Tonight piece) cites him being vocal in the Eugene McGee hit-run affair. The ABC covered it here as well as its lead-on to the Kapunda Road Royal Commission. [5] from the Adelaide Advertiser references his "zany publicity stunts". That took me precisely 10 minutes on Google. I didn't even have to go to Factiva to search for the stuff. Can this now be readded with the appropriate sources? Orderinchaos 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Not sure that rotary club thing is really the best source we can find. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Factiva search "Quick on the law." (7 November 1998, Adelaide Advertiser p53, no author listed) notes the APLA link. "Australian lawmaker visits S.C. to see anti-gambling efforts" (Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press, 12 June 1998) says personal injury lawyer (and comments on the last part of the original para's quote re him seeing more problem gambling cases), as does "Anti-pokies MP could call shots in the Senate" Mark Davis, 12 October 1997, SMH p7 which also comments on his "genius for publicity stunts". (That SMH article could actually be used to improve what is here, too.) I'm personally of the belief the health problems line should be removed (hence why I did so when I initially reverted). Orderinchaos 05:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Can I be so sceptical as to be suspicious of the coincidence of the timing of this issue from overseas editors, and his attack on scientology? It seems Xenophon is scratching some very sensitive areas that are rocking the core of scientology... Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Indeed. It's the first time I can remember that BLP has been used to remove neutral but positive-leaning content from an article. Some helpful email regarding the activities over time of the reverting editor has painted rather an interesting picture. Orderinchaos 05:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) If you take a moment to read my Featured article work, you will see that in no way has my intention been to disparage the subject of this article. Quite the opposite. My intention was to enforce site policies. Cirt (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Update: The addition [6] of sourced material back to the article by Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) looks great! Excellent work. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This came to a positive resolution - the material has been sourced and added back to the article. :) Cirt (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Citations and poor style

This article has a poor style of simply placing all citations at ends of paragraphs instead of ends of sentences. We therefore cannot know which particular citation goes to which bit of information in which sentence. This is especially a problem for quotes from WP:BLPs, which then appear to be unsourced. These quotes must have cites at the ends of those sentences. Also, please use WP:CIT to format cites in this article. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, by Orderinchaos (talk · contribs). :) Cirt (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Today Tonight info

[7] Cirt (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Gap/ref?

I notice that the earliest the article goes is that he attended Prince Alfred College, yet the infobox says he was born in Adelaide with no cite... Timeshift (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Will do some additional research. Cirt (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a reference for his place and date of birth from his Parliament House Bio. Lear's Fool (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Spinal fusion surgery noteable?

And where abouts should it be inserted? Timeshift (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

'See also' relevance - Aaron Saxton?

I'm not sure there's relevance in the change made at this edit. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I will work it into the article itself, moment. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Cirt (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Political Lingo

I don't know to what extent folks care about a non-Australian audience, but if the term "above the line" (with reference to the ballot) could be near either an explanation or a link to an explanation, that would be super. I consider myself well above the median in Anglosphere knowledge of how Australian Senate elections work, but I don't know what "above the line" refers to. Is that for if people want to vote for a party list rather than order all the candidates themselves? 69.118.29.171 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have the preferential system of voting. The ballot paper has a list of the main political parties at the top of the page (above the line) and the names of dozens of contesting individuals below the line. A voter who knows who a party will give their preferences to, and agrees with them, can just vote 1 for that party. If they don't win the election on the "primary vote", their preference will go to their next favoured, and so on. If the voter wants his/her primary vote to go to a certain party, but disagrees with that party's order of preferences, they need to choose from all the dozens of names below, ranking them from 1 to, perhaps, 30. To use an example, if a voter would like to see Australia ruled by the Shooters Party, but if that is not possible, then by the Greens, he would notice that the Shooters give their prefs to the Liberals, which this voter does not want. So he has to go below the line and rank all the contestants, ranking the individual Shooters highest and the individual Greens next highest and so on. This is quite troublesome and time consuming. It is a good system in many ways, but can disadvantage independent candidates. Rumiton (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article should not use American English

I noticed numerous instances of serial commas being used in this article. The serial comma is unique to American English. Since this article is about an Australian politician who is presumably known only in Australia, American English is totally inappropriate here and these serial commas are grammatically incorrect. I don't know who made this mistake and it's not particularly important, but this has to stop immediately. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Clive Palmer/Nick Xenophon spat - inclusion of some sort?

Palmer seems to be rather consistently nasty in his remarks about Xenophon, should something be added somewhere? - [8][9][10][11] - just two Palmer snippets: "Nick Xenophon should give himself an uppercut. I understand Nick Xenophon does not have the balance of power, he's belting his head right now against the bathroom door and he's looking at how it's affecting his hair. I forgive Nick Xenophon for his Brylcreem and his hair dryer. He's got the blackest hair, you'd think he's an Asian." and "It (the PUP-AMEP agreement) was released on Christmas Day, but he (Xenophon) didn't get a chance to come and see it, he was down in South Australia all day, the poor old bastard." Timeshift (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks good here. And today, the boot's not on Palmer's foot. Reference to hair is hilarious when coming from Palmer. If one wanted to include all this white noise in the article, it'll get very, very long over time. Why not have some amusing, but incosequential stuff here. 121.209.56.11 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Content removal

Alledgedly some of the content is wrong and irrelevant. I disagree, because it is supported by reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, The information under '2013 federal election' is out of date. The Sport's party did not get elected after the WA senate election. Therefore, the discussion here is based on factually incorrect and irrelevant material. While I agree that my initial deletion was too harsh (I was conscious this discussion is already dealt with on the Australian Senate special election in Western Australia page), I compromised by including the discussion on previous cases where minor parties got elected on small primary votes. This passage also needed editing because Bob Day was elected at the 2013 election and is therefore not a 'previous example'. Can you meet me half way on this as I believe my edits improve the sharpness and accuracy of the passage? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoworker91 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

And my other changes to the page have, I'm sure you'll agree, been constructive. I have not sought to paint Nick Xenophon in a bad or good light. I have also provided references, updated content, made grammatical changes, and removed content that is not relevant to the subject matter (Nick Xenophon). Please delete my contributions if you genuinely believe they are biased and not objective! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoworker91 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

1) The article is supposed to be about Nick Xenophon, so intricate detail of the 2013 election is not relevant to this discussion. 2) The information is incorrect because the sources are out of date. The WA Senate election result of 2013 was declared voidBold text by the Australian Electoral Commission and a new election was held, meaning the Sport's party did not win a seat at all! 3) Family First's Bob Day won a seat at the 2013 election and is therefore not a "previous example" Z3nertr8p3r 00:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenoworker91 (talk • contribs)

1.  Removed I've removed the chunk of text, I agree it's not needed.
2. Didn't know that election got annulled.
3. I agree

I've removed the smaller amount of text that you previously removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken reference

"Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "blast" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." This error comes up on citation number 45. I don't know how to fix it — if someone else does so, I'll watch and learn. Thanks! Timeshift (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting article worth a read and consideration of bits to add

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/revealed-labor-and-liberal-strategies-to-smash-nick-xenophons-electoral-success/news-story/192ebf2609d0a22b30643e5cd9dbc9c7 - if you get paywalled and can't view it, paste the link in to news.google.com.au and try opening the search result from that. Interesting bits include: allegations that both major parties are bipartisan in going after Xenophon and his party in unprecedented ways yet individually will not, fearing voter backlash... "the risk for the major parties is demonstrated by their reluctance to make on-the-record criticisms of Senator Xenophon, fearing that would trigger a voter backlash"; "voting rights for party governance are held by a four-person management committee — himself, Mr Griff, state upper house MP John Darley and senior adviser Connie Bonaros" and claims of a "benevolent dictatorship by 'St Nick'"; equating Xenophon's party to Palmer's party despite VAST historical electoral differences; Liberal questions over his 1997 poker machine position; Liberals intentionally misleading how lower house preference choices function, with malicious statements like "Voting for Nick Xenophon Team could see Bill Shorten become PM with lower house preferences benefiting Labor candidates"; Xenophon is the party's convener rather than leader; simplistic claims of "growing unrest at the two-party system, which has delivered instability in the form of five prime ministers in five years" (when infact the 2010 and 2013 results and general era were due to Abbott's career-long polling disapproval and mistrust, which despite anti-Labor 2PP swings at each, the Coalition Senate vote actually fell at each, with the greatest disparity in 2013... despite winning, there was a record EIGHT PERCENT DIFFERENCE between the Coalition Senate and House vote, compared to the standard three percent difference for Labor. But I digress); and the biased pro two-party editorialising of News Ltd by saying (and this is just one example) "To smash his popularity, the major parties will have to wreck this image by successfully portraying him as leading an out-of-control personality cult saddled with a bunch of haphazard candidates". Anywho, the convenor and four-person management committee bits drew me to mentioning this here... and/or Nick Xenophon Team. Though a better ref would be nice. Also, talk of a double dissolution where the quota for Senate election is halved, a lack of progress on Senate electoral reform, and Xenophon's uncanny ability to be attractive to many minor parties, six NXT Senate seats is a real possibility. Timeshift (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)