Talk:Alex Hawke

2009 Factional Controversy
[ User:Rebecca some how finds this unfit for the page the info is relevant, referenced and well written]

In 2009 Alex Hawke was the subject as a result of his involvement in a factional battle in the NSW Liberal Party. Alex has been accused of splitting with his former allie Liberal Right NSW member of the legislative council David Clarke and drifting towards the the left of the party to garner favour with the federal leader of the time Malcolm Turnbull in an unsuccessful attempt to move to the front bench, Hawke later admitted to this shift in ideology.

Several controversial incidents also brought Hawke into the public's attention. In September Hawke shut down a Young Liberal branch meeting scheduled to take place at his electoral office and later called the police to end it, he later faced criticism after police stated that there was no reason for them to be there and their presence was "a stunt". Hawke also was embarrassed by a video uploaded on to youtube, a parody of the German film Downfall where "translations" of the speakers alledgedly leaked much of Hawke's hidden factional manouvering in the Liberal Party.


 * I agree that something should be said about this in the article, as the Hawke-Clarke factional war has been widely reported. However, this text won't cut it - it's clearly a view of the feud from the perspective of the Clarke forces. It's a biography of a living person, and it needs to be much tighter and more neutral before it goes in the article. Rebecca (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversial matters arising from Hawke's career
References to controversial instances in Alex's career have often been removed. Previous material was referenced appropriately and drew its information from acknowledged sources such as The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is in contrast to assumptions made in previous entries regarding Alex's sexuality which were both unnecessary and referenced inappropriately. Pagesofhistory (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you've got an article with prominent Labor politicians calling the guy an "extremist" (presumably because he opposes abortion, supports the monarchy, or opposes drug rooms -- all very "extreme" things), an insinuation that he caused the near-suicide of a Liberal leader, and, well, lots and lots of opinion from lots of different leaders. Having an article as a quotes-r-us means its terribly opinionated. For all my Green friends out there, I wonder what Nettle's article would be like if it was littered with quotes of what people thought of her, including the all-knowing Adam Carr. Michael talk 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with beneaththelandslide. All of the sections in Pagesofhistory's version take a biased slant to the article, focusing attention on how controversial he is. However, some mention of the preselection and his (much-cited) role in Brogden's general downfall does need mentioning. Rebecca (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate speculation
There have been edits removing the reference to Alex being homosexual. This article is very biased and makes no mention of the fact that being homosexual (or bisexual) and claiming to be so far-right contradicts itself. It is well known amongst some of Alex's former friends and fellow former university students as to where his tendancies lie. Is this a cover-up?

This article is disgracefully POV. Charged language, speculatory claims, etc, etc. --RaiderAspect 06:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ...being homosexual (or bisexual) and claiming to be so far-right contradicts itself...
 * Someone should really have let Pim Fortuyn know (he'd've been very disappointed, I'm sure), not to mention the Log Cabin Republicans, and doubtless dozens of others I can't recall right now. Homophobia is not the be-all and end-all of conservatism any more than all supporters of gay rights lean to the left; just because someone is openly gay doesn't mean they can't fulfil all the other criteria for being a right-winger (or a bigot). ～J.K. 06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

indeed...nobody needs comments like that here...could somone remove them please...and besides, having right wing views does not mean you cannot be homosexual. sex and politics, everyone knows they are separate. who cares. what matters is that he does his job correctly and is the voice of the young liberal movement, not whether he is homosexual or not. --mpearse 06:44, 7 February 2006

Preselection results
I wasn't aware that there were 180 Mitchell preselectors. The numbers seem off, and I believe the Herald is wrong. Will need to update with a more accurate source when it becomes available. Michael talk 05:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * this source states 81 to 20, which also matches the numbers on the the ABC and Landeryou's blog. Michael talk 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Election Campaign
During the 2007 Federal election campaign, it was reported in The Age that "The Liberal Party has also gagged one of its highest-profile and most controversial candidates, forbidding him from media interviews which, the party says, "are not a campaign priority".[23] However, numerous records of interviews with him exist in the Sydney Morning Herald [24] and local papers.

Why is it that this article in the Age newspaper (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gaffeshy-leader-gags-all-labor-candidates/2007/10/10/1191695993861.html) that refers the gag placed on Alex Hawke (October 2007) and then with an additional sentence of "numerous records of interviews" with only reference which is an article from June 2007 before his preselection?

Talk about someone putting some spin on this article. My experience (as a local) is that Alex Hawke was almost never seen during the campaign. For an example see: http://castlehill.yourguide.com.au/news/local/political/foreignaid-shame/1082622.html

I think the "number records of interviews" sentence ought to be removed. --Dean Tregenza (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the SMH article is after his preselection, not before. Secondly, I recall numerous articles involving him in the local media - that was how I got interested in this in the first place! The fact that he didn't attend one event is hardly indicative of anything, and the fact that he didn't give an interview to an interstate newspaper with a reputation of left-bias is, I would suggest, quite understandable. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat bullshit
I know I just added to this, but I intend to remove all the nonsense accusations and what not throughout this article, and to keep it to the facts. Hawke has been subject to nothing less than a tsunami of invective from the left; this is not a commentary or opinion piece, and this rubbish does not belong (people can always click on the links to hear the SMH degenerate Hawke or the Australian praise him). All opinion—whether good or bad—should be removed, and only the facts should be included. Michael talk 01:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your decision to remove that paragraph. Just because Anthony Albanese opened his mouth to say something, Alex Hawke opened his mouth to defend himself and it was all reported in a newspaper does not make the quotations in question notable. An encyclopedia is not just full of facts, they need to be relevant facts. - Grumpyyoungman01 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I reiterate a need to keep this article neutral. Opinion, whether good or bad, needs to be kept out of it to avoid falling into an opinion piece. Michael talk 06:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact check
Any way of checking whether the SMH (107 to 81) or ABC (81 to 20) is correct on the vote last week? It seems odd that there's such a divergence between published media sources. Orderinchaos 04:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the 'preselection results' section above. Michael talk 04:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hawketown
Reverted to edit prior to vandalism (unsubstantiated rumor about subject sexuality, possible defamation). (58.175.49.51 (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Attendance at maiden speech
with more people in attendance than for any other First Speech for almost twenty years http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr200208.pdf House of Representatives Hansard Page 72 that is an opinion of Broadbent rather than verified fact. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that a Member of Parliament remarked on the extroninarily large attendence makes surley makes it relevant notable. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * still doesn't make it fact. it is still a point of view that could be biased. Neutral_point_of_view Michellecrisp (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * it wasn't refuted anywhere, and I would suggest that the fact there were so many observers it was worth a Member of Parliament stating it in the Chamber, makes it noteworthy and worth including. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Michellecrisp. The member for McMillan's remark could not be taken as a reliable source in the context that it was made. It may very well be true, but a better and impartial source is needed. &mdash;Moondyne click! 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about something to note the large attendance without neccessarily saying it was the largest in 20 years? Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't add much value without being verifiable. It's a bit like a sports commentator saying "this is the largest crowd I've seen in 10 years." Michellecrisp (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to glorify Hawke, he's only a backbencher for only a few months now and does not have a record of achievement like a long serving minister. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is simply stating what ha sbee nreported, not glorifying Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of things get reported in Parliament etc but does not mean they have to be included in an article. Wikipedia does not report everything about a person in their Wikipedia article, Hawke's article should be compared to a good article of an Australian politician. For example, there was no need to copy chunks from his maiden speech when all one has to do is read the link. or being a member of relatively minor organisations. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of crap gets said in parliament by all sides - politics in the parliamentary sphere in an Australian context is a bizarre test of wills and unless we had a neutral peer-reviewed source which actually measured such things (which to my knowledge there isn't - I don't see any statistical projections on aph.gov.au's website) I think it's safe to assume this comment probably falls into the same general bucket of hyperbole. Orderinchaos 22:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Class
I don't think this necessarily ought be classified as 'stub' class any more - thoughts? Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Safe seats
On an 11% margin, in one of the safest coalition seats in Australia, is it really noteable to mention that the MP won all booths in the electorate? That is usually a given in a seat as safe as Mitchell. But why spoil a good story with facts eh? Timeshift (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was only one of two seats in NSW where that happened! Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only 6 Liberal seats in Australia that are safer than Mitchell. So i'm not surprised. Thanks Moondyne. Timeshift (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree and have removed it. &mdash;Moondyne click! 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but for a 30 year old to achieve this I would think is pretty remarkable!Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you a friend of Hawke? Michellecrisp (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am someone with an interest in Australian politics who finds some of his achievements quite remarkable. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How does being 30 make a difference? He was preselected, overriding the local branch by the Liberal executive, parachuted in to what is currently the 6th safest Liberal seat in the country. Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Agreed with Timeshift9's 00:20 comment - this reflects the character of the area. Had Alex Hawke run for, say, Bennelong or Kingsford-Smith or Parramatta, would he have won every booth in the district? Many people in Mitchell would vote for the Liberal party no matter who was standing, just as many people in Kingsford-Smith would vote for the Labor party no matter who was standing - that much is the nature of the polity, especially with a compulsory voting mechanism.
 * To Michelle's question - the pecular localisation of your (APB's) edits on a particular region of Sydney's politicians, where you have strongly supported three right-wing Liberal MPs and attempted to denigrate a Labor MP, and have gotten into two edit wars in your first two days on edits which are questionable on core policy. I think you would have to admit the perception that you are a strongly biased observer or perhaps even conflicted is there to be made. It helps to remember this is a community of diverse views and interests, bound by a complicated intermix of norms and stated guidelines/policies, and if you work within them, no matter your affiliation, you're likely to find broad acceptance. I've worked in the political areas on here for over two years and I've found that letting the facts tell the story is the most sound approach, results in the best outcomes, and can be defended objectively. Any other approach usually gets shot down in flames - this has been the end of many editors in times past. Orderinchaos 23:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Orderinchaos, the editing of Auspoliticsbuff is skewed to maximising positive coverage of Lib politicians in particular Alex Hawke. At first I did not make much of it but when he/she became extremely defensive of calling Albanese a "left powerbroker". I am curious as to why Auspoliticsbuff consistently tried to add Hawke's facebook entry? Wikipedia articles of people are NOT fan sites. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was simply following the precedent set in Kevin Rudd's site and trying to be consistent. You will note that I did not delete any of the negative material, simply made the page much more balanced and neutral. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Precedent set in Kevin Rudd's site"? Stop trolling. Timeshift (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth is it trolling to note that Kevin Rudd's Wikipedia entry has a link to his myspace????? Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are trying to play off articles with each other. Validating an argument by saying "well this page does" is not a valid argument. Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Any concept of precedent doesn't really apply on Wikipedia - we have policy which guides us - particularly WP:EL, our external links guideline. Orderinchaos 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It nevertheless remains a source of further information about Alex Hawke. If people wish to learn more about him, they can do so. For instance, his scores on the Political Compass, on the "world's smallest political quiz" give information about his political beliefs, as do what books he's reading etc. Such information is obviously unencyclopedic and shouldn't be included here, however, persons searching Wikipedia should have the right to be able to investigate further, and this is a good means for them to do so. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way that one can read Hawke's "Political Compass" is to be on Hawke's Facebook friend list. this establishes Auspoliticsbuff as a friend of Hawke and therefore there is clear conflict of interest. 124.148.125.137 (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also a 'friend' of Kevin Rudd's on myspace... it's called doing research. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not need his Facebook entry, and I do not think Hawke wants it so publicly available either. Rudd can be a MySpace trendie if he so wishes. This is an irrelevant issue compared to the continuing cleanup that can and should be done to the article. Michael talk 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudd's Myspace was talked about by the media. Hawke's wasn't. One is a PM, one isn't. WP:NOTE. Timeshift (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is in the slightest bit relevant. The fact is that I am providing a link which gives additional information about a Federal Member of Parliament. Why you have objections to providing Wiki readers with an avenue to see alternate information is beyond me. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKS - Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET. However, this is a guideline, and can be changed with consensus. The Myspace link was added to Rudd's page as the media coverage made it noteable, as opposed to no media coverage of Hawke's myspace. Capische? Timeshift (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet that part of WP:LINKS begins "except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject..." Hence social networking sites would be prohibited, however, this page eis "an official page of the article subject". Hence it does not fall under this guideline, no? Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True. Regardless, it seems consensus has overriden that. I think it's justifiable for party leaders to have links to their myspace/facebook/whatever but that's it. Timeshift (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I concede that, for now at least, the consensus is that the link should not be there. Which is why I have not attempted recently to replace it. However, as you have now acknowledged, my judgment in making the initial decision to include it WAS in accordance with WP:LINKS, and your misquote of [WP:LINKS]] was showed you to be in error. But let us move on... Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Clear difference Kevin Rudd accepted everyone willy nilly on his Facebook/Myspace. I doubt Alex Hawke does especially since he has a closed profile and would not want to not have leaks to outside non trusted sources. I doubt that Auspoliticsbuff really is Hawke's Facebook friend for "research"...he/she could be a Young Lib given the nature of the edits. 124.148.125.137 (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

sentence on economics
I've noticed there is some debate on this sentence: Already a passionate free market advocate, he recalls once being thrown out of an economics class for telling a teacher there was more to economics than Keynes. It still needs to pass the test for verifiability of Articles must rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy WP:V. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking about how on earth this could be made verifiable is actually pretty amusing. A peer-reviewed dissertation by the economics lecturer? And in my experience people don't get "thrown out of classes" at university - even poorly behaved people, unless they bring out a knife or something - and I've been 12 years on and off in the higher education system and am at times known to have controversial opinions, so the sentence fails my common-sense test anyway. It sounds like somebody being dramatic in characterising opposition to their views to give the impression that they have a truth others are afraid of. Orderinchaos 03:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but by that logic, the fact that Alex Hawke has greek grandparents could be up for challenge because the quote we're referring to was said by Alex himself! Far more likely that Alex was a victim of academic bias (which is far more prevalent than your comments suggest) and I don't think that academic discrimination is somehting that ought be treated particularly likely (Oh also, I thought the comment referred to high school?) Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Monthly seems a reasonable source in terms of accurate reporting and fact-checking. The issue is that the "fact" The Monthly reports is not that Hawke was thrown out of a class, only that he says he was. I have amended the sentence in the article to better correlate with the reference.


 * Normally I'd discuss a point of contention here before making a change but as this seems a minor issue I just went ahead and did it. Am happy to discuss should anyone disagree. Euryalus (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good for me thanks :) Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many quotes
While direct quotes can be useful in ensuring political statements are not misinterpreted, I'd argue this article has rather too many and in parts resembles just a collection of newspaper excerpts. I'd like to go through and turn some of the quotes into simple prose. I am aware this article has a number of "regulars" so wanted to gauge consensus on the supply or oversupply of quotiations before I changed anything. So - any other views? Euryalus (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily think the quotes in an of themselves are a problem per se, however, if the article can be made more readable, whilst still maintaining the integrity of the comments, then is certainly worth striving for. I just think we need to be careful - due to the apparent controversies here - that in doing so we don't misinterpret comments etc Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources
Most of the references for this article are fine but a small number are effectively self-published - notably his maiden speech to parliament and his Parliamentary biography. Neither of these are externally fact-checked - the maiden speech is a direct transcript of the member's words and the biography is written by the Member's office and faithfully reproduced on the Parliament House website. Per the relevant guideline sources such as these are usable provided certainc riteria are met, including that they reference claims that are not contentious and there is no doubt who wrote them. the one condition that these sources may not meet is No.3 - that the point they reference is not "unduly self-serving".

On balance I think these soruces are sufficient for the points they attest to but it would be preferable if alternative references could be found to replace them. There is a reasonable amount of realible secondary sources about Hawke. I'll have a read through what I can find and imporve the references as I go, but anyone else is welcome to help with this task. Euryalus (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with that, and will keep a look out for other sources. However, I don't think that the ones where they're used to date are particularly contraversial, but yes you are quite right in that it shuold be done. The only other point I would make is that his maiden speech would still be of use in the section which discusses his ideology.Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex's Woolworths career
"Hawke worked part-time in the private sector whilst studying at university in 1998, becoming an assistant-manager for Woolworths in the Hills District."

While I feel this section has been put in just so it can be said he hasn't lived off the public purse all his life, its still a little misleading to use "assistant manager" and is written in a way to elevate his importance.

Assistant manager of what within Woolworths? district assistant manager with Woolworths corporate division in the Hills district or assistant manager of the fruit and vegetable department or the night shift crew in one particular store? Maybe it would be more appropriate just to say Alex worked at Woolworths part time while studying at University. The sole citation link to Hansard with where Alex cites his career at Woolworths is also dead. Surfing bird (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Alex Hawke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080202043404/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,16428085-421,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16428085-421,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Alex Hawke. 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/20080731144348/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/biography.asp?id=HWO to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/biography.asp?id=HWO
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731144320/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=HWO to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/firstspeech.asp?id=HWO

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alex Hawke. 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 tag to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-17496-134.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C10117%2C16428085-421%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215234446/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HWO to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HWO

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alex Hawke. 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/20110605043029/http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr200208.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr200208.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alex Hawke 2016.jpg