Talk:Wilson Tuckey

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Australia: Western Australia / Politics Low‑importance Wilson Tuckey is within the scope of 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 202.14.81.49 (talk · contribs) / Tuckey, Wilson This user has contributed to the article.

I quote the wikipedia article:

"Despite this, his hard-line conservatism made him a favourite of Howard's after he returned to the leadership in 1995"

Is this the same "hardline conservatism" which caused John Howard to let in record numbers immigrants for 10 straight years? The same "hardline conservatism" which caused John Howard to be "the best friend medicare has ever had"? or perhaps it's the same "hardline conservatism" which saw John Howard introduce gun control?

Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.137 (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a place for

WP:SOAPBOX. Howard's years saw increased social conservatism. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What is incorrect? Are you saying the Howard government was no more socially conservative than the Fraser or Menzies governments? Howard himself boasted that he was the most conservative PM Australia has ever had. Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact remains that John Howard let in record numbers of immigrants for 10 years. How does that make him conservative? In what way is John Howard conservative? Please give some examples.

In addition, let us consider a quote from the article:

"Mr Tuckey and his extremist racist views really do belong to another generation."

Why else would this quote be included other than to confirm in the minds of the (white-Australian) reading population that Mr Tuckey is a good person? It is promoted in such a way that makes the reader think "it is being said in a way that is supposed to make Mr Tuckey look bad, but i now view him as looking good for being racist". My point is, if Mr Tuckey is racist or conservative, then why does he belong to a political party which let in record numbers of Muslims and Asians for 10 straight years? Why else would such a quote be included except so as to make Mr Tuckey appear "good" through reverse psychology?

Such labelling of Mr Tuckey (or Mr Howard) as conservative or racist is a wedge. What i mean by that is it creates 1 of 2 reactions from readers. It either makes them say "yes, i'm certainly voting for him! He's conservative/racist, and i consider myself to be conservative/racist" or the opposite "oh that deplorable man. I'm politically correct and detest such people".

Both opinions however are based upon the premise that Wilson Tuckey, John Howard and the Liberal Party are in fact conservative or racist. But as my point shows, how can they claim to be conservative or racist? What actions allow them to claim such a title? Certainly not their immigration policy, because not only did the Liberal party not abolish immigration, but they massively increased it.

Because he refused boats entry in to Australian waters, and children/truth overboard. Immigration numbers have increased in each government. Fraser increased immigration, Hawke/Keating did beyond that, Howard did beyond that, Rudd did beyond that. The legal numbers you allow to (mostly temporarily) immigrate only paint one small part of the picture. Just see what is said on the internet about it. Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The Labor party introduced detention centers. 2) What good is refusing boats entry into Australian waters (with a couple dozen people on board) when you're letting in record numbers of immigrants of the same type as the refugees legitimately? (except so as to give the media something to show on TV that promotes you as being "tough on immigration") - my point being that the whole "liberals are conservative" attitude amongst wikipedia, the media etc.. is nothing more than a marketting exercise designed to steal votes from people to consider themselves to be conservative (and then back-stabbing such people). 3) Saying that there is an ascention in immigration numbers irrespective of governments does not explain how the Liberal party is conservative or racist.

1) The coalition introduced the policy of refusing entry in to waters. Detention centers were at least not floating graves. 2) Often the ones that are most at danger are unable to enter legally for a variety of reasons, such as through the need for immediate refuge, or persecution from their government. 3) Your views make you self-evident as from the hard right by not being able to recognise it is a move to the right by moving from the policy of detaining illegals to refusing entry in to Australian waters. But this is not a debate and barely anyone would agree with you - even the media which you confess does not agree with your political ideology. I end my replies to you here. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the South Australian Police Minister mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Shadow Treasurer (talk • contribs)

As we all know, Wilson Tuckey has a criminal conviction. A criminal record. Every other article in Wikipedia about Australians with criminal records gets the tag Category:Australian Criminals. Is there any reason why an exception be made for a politician? I believe Tuckey is the only politician in Federal Parliament to have a criminal record. I hereby propose the category tag be added to this article. --Lester 06:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This isn't even a matter of discussion; you can NOT put claims of that nature into an article on a public figure without very solid sourcing (i.e. that he's known as a criminal, which he patently isn't). Rebecca (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source [1]

Its not exactly a strong source to use surely there is something better like maybe a bio article somewhere thats actually about Ironbar rather than hanging it on this piece. It would also be wise to clarify whether the type of conviction because a "spent conviction" doesnt leave a criminal record. Gnangarra 11:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having a criminal record and being tagged as a criminal are two quite different things. Paul Omodei and Don Randall both have criminal convictions, for example, but it would not be appropriate to label either as criminals. Orderinchaos 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs some level of protection. The last few months have seen a large number of unregistered users making edits ranging from the unhelpful to the libelous. I realise we should

make a request at

WP:RFP. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I lodged a request, but it was declined because there is not enough recent vandalism. Lear's Fool (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

is desperately needed. LibStar (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a truly shocking photo. Can't we find something better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.252.2 (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Tuckey's page, when discussing how he came to be nicknamed "Ironbar", as well as his arguments with Paul Keating, mentions that John Howard and Keating never talked again due to Tuckey's actions and Howard's refusal to discipline Tuckey. This is of course untrue, as Howard and Keating would have spoken numerous times when Keating became Prime Minister, and Howard Opposition Leader. Also, when Howard defeated Keating to become PM, Keating gave Howard a tour of The Lodge in Canberra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.199.34 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I just had a look at the source, which is an Annabel Crabb article so ought to be reliable - but does say "never spoke again". But then the whole Tuckey/Keating/Howard triangle doesn't belong in the "Ironbar" section at all. The whole page is a bit of a mess really. --paxman (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wilson Tuckey. 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/20080811122802/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c14.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c14.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 06:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]