Talk:Andrew Bartlett

I am pretty sure that he can not contest the seat for the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens is not a party, it is a federation of the state and territory parties. The Australian Greens do not run candidates. The state party select Senate candidates and the relevant local group selects Representative candidates. In this case it would be the North Brisbane Greens who cover the federal seat of Brisbane. Jacob Vardy (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Tim's right; acting-incumbents do not warrant mention in the sucession tables.

James F. (talk) 02:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In some circumstances I'd agree with you, such as when Bartlett briefly stepped down, and Lyn Allison became acting leader. In this case though, I think it's simply misleading to state that Bartlett succeeded Stott-Despoja. Ambi 02:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The Democrats' own website doesn't mention Grieg, they just say "Senator Stott Despoja resigned from the position of Party Leader and the members elected Senator Andrew Bartlett as Leader in October 2002." -- Tim Starling 07:36, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Bartlett's assault on female Senate colleaue
I am concerned the article does not sufficiently emphasize the one thing the Senator seems to be well known for. Please discuss, should it be in the first paragraph for example. I think it probably should. Coqsportif Honolulu Hawaii Coqsportif 06:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article, which I agree was full of pro-Bartlett stuff. Now, I suggest you leave it alone. Adam 06:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Good edits. Good advice. Coqsportif 06:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate
I’m relatively new to wikipedia so someone feel free to correct me but isn’t something that claims to be an encyclopedia meant to at least try to be accurate?

The section on Senator Bartlett’s Leadership of the Democrats seems to me to be pretty biased and one-sided - quite apart from the fact that it contains inaccurate and unsubstantiated assertions which are presented as fact, and that the entry almost entirely ignores Bartlett's entire record as Leader and focuses instead on reinforcing the distortions of a single tabloid media incident.

For example:

It quotes Woodley as saying Bartlett is an alcoholic - without any reference. All I ever saw in the media at that time from Woodley was that he said that some people had concerns about Bartlett’s drinking.

The suggestion that Bartlett seemed to confirm he is an alcoholic is incorrect - he quite specifically did not. He did say he had some heath problems which were made worse by drinking alcohol. It’s a very different thing.

Bartlett did not stand down from the Leadership he stood aside and took leave for a month.

Bartlett never confirmed Ferris’s allegations – not denying something is not a confirmation – it’s a decision to not get into the argument.

He had not been drinking at a Democrats Christmas party before being invited to join the Liberal Party event. The Democrats function was the evening before.

If you look at these recent entries on his blog it is very apparent he does not confirm Ferris’s allegations.

August 31 http://andrewbartlettonline.blogspot.com/2005/08/john-brogden.html

“I remember in my own circumstance when I was copping a lot of criticism over allegations about my behaviour, some people who had seen the alleged ‘incident’ contacted me to commiserate at how distorted and exaggerated the public portrayal of it was. However, I appreciate that it was impractical to expect them to say so publicly, given the politics of the situation.”

August 28 http://andrewbartlettonline.blogspot.com/2005/08/press-gallery-journalists-face-jail.html

“Some people may see it as ironic that I would defend Harvey and McManus in regard to receiving leaked information, as they were key writers of the front page story in the Herald Sun in December 2003 which contained leaked allegations about an argument I had with Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris. That story was damaging to the Democrats and very hurtful for my family, (as the person who composed and planted the allegations knew it would be), but I can't really blame the journalists for that. Although the story contained some exaggerations, they basically just reported the allegations they were given, which were framed specifically so it would cause damage when leaked .”

And from this speech to the senate August 16 2005 (Australian Hansard page no 86) http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2233037&TABLE=HANSARDS&TARGET=

“From personal experience I can see why some people do not give unconditional apologies. I recall doing something once that somebody took offence to, so I thought the appropriate thing to do was to apologise unconditionally. That was then taken as open season by everybody as being a clear admission of guilt for whatever farcical allegation anybody wanted to make for the next week. I had to enjoy the pleasures of considerable media attention outside my fence for a solid week, and my wife and child also had to cope with that for a week. Of course, the person who leaked that information knew that is what would happen, because they told me that is what would happen before they decided to leak it.

The fact is that if somebody indicates that they have taken offence to something and that is what occurs—somebody stands up, takes a point of order and says, ‘I object to that’—then I think the appropriate thing to do is to apologise. I do not think it is necessary to go into all the context surrounding it. I did not do that in that case, either. I did not talk about the things that were said to me or the context as to why I might take offence. That did not stop the Prime Minister criticising and saying, ‘The facts speak for themselves,’ even though he did not know what the facts were, or stop the Labor Premier of Queensland calling on me to resign, even though he did not know what the facts were. A whole lot of other people passed comment, including some members of my own party, none of whom ever asked me for my side of the story.”

I think it shows an extraordinary bias to include a long quote from Ferris while there is nothing from Bartlett himself, especially as it’s very clear from the statement above that there was much more to the exchange than Ferris claims.

I attempted to correct these things previously but the page has been changed back again. I hadn’t registered as a member at that time but have done so now.

Flora --Flora Morton 12:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Bartlett has had nearly two years to deny (a) that he was drunk, (b) that he stole the wine from the Liberal Party function, (c) that he grabbed Ferris's arm and called her a "fucking bitch", and (d) that he followed her out of the chamber while verbally abusing her. Since he hasn't denied these allegations, which have been in the public arena all this time (and some of which were recorded on video), we are entitled to take that as an admission of guilt. Bartlett is a politician and knows that. When he makes a statement denying that he did those things, the article can quote that statement. None of the quotes above are denials, they are just fishing for sympathy and blame-someone-elses for his behaviour (classic alcoholic-in-denial behavior, by the way).

Bartlett has in fact admitted both the facts of the Ferris incident and that he is, or was, an alcoholic. See this Bulletin article, with which he co-operated. Woodley is quoted there to the same effect, as he was at the time. If Bartlett now says that people "don't know what the facts are," he is perfectly free to put his own version of the facts on the record. Until he does so, he can't complain if the current version of the facts is accepted as true.

If the detail about which party he had been drinking at is wrong, it should be corrected.

If you feel there is not enough positive stuff about the rest of Bartlett's political career, you are free to add more. But the fact is that his career consists of being a cross-bench Senator for seven years, and briefly being leader of a minor party. He hasn't actually done anything much except make nice speeches and lead the Dems to their worst-ever election result.

Adam 13:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam using your own criteria you would have to then also assume that every allegation made about Mark Latham which he didn't deny should be assumed to be true – and that means you’d have to edit out most of what’s on his page and reduce it to being 90% on his post-election burn out, dismissing all the stuff he did during his leadership as flaky and focusing just on his 'instability', 'erratic behaviour' etc, because that’s about all you'd get on him from most of the main stream media these days. And are you suggesting that all of the allegations that the Daily Telegraph made about John Brogden must be true, because he hasn't categorically denied them?

I’ve read The Bulletin article you refer too – but can not find a quote from Bartlett that even remotely says "I am an alcoholic". The 'genetically predisposed to alcoholism' line is not in quotes so obviously is not one, and in any case having a possible genetic predisposition to alcoholism is very different from him saying he is one.

I did not read Bartlett’s blog entries or his speech as fishing for sympathy, but an indication that the reporting of this incident was selective and one sided.

In any case your assertion that Bartlett hasn't actually achieved anything much during his time as a Senator is ridiculous and completely dismisses the solid body of work he has done particularly in the area of refugees and animal welfare, not to mention substantial environmental gains. In fact that whole statement indicates a political bias that is inappropriate for someone editing this page.

I have added in to the article some of the things Bartlett worked on and achieved while Democrats Leader. I also think the long quote from Ferris is inappropriate – it is her view and not substantiated - and should be removed. Flora Morton 14:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your loyalty Flora but that really is a load of tosh.
 * Bartlett was accused of specific acts of misconduct which he has never denied. Given the gravity of the accusations and their consequences, that can only mean that the accusations were correct (which no-one disputed at the time), and that he accepted them (very wise given that he was filmed accosting Ferris). If politicians are accused of things they're not guilty of, believe me, they deny them.
 * The Bulletin article clearly implies that he is or was an alcoholic, and he made no attempt to refute that, either when interviewed or after publication. If he had wanted to deny it he could have done so, and indeed if it wasn't true he could have sued.
 * Since Bartlett had the courage to admit these things at the time, I think you might do him the courtesy of acknowledging them and not come up with these feeble denials two years later.
 * As for his work, as I said, you are free to add more about his career if you want.
 * If you delete the Ferris quote I will revert you.
 * I'm off to bed now - chat again tomorrow. Adam 14:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well tosh to you too Adam! :-)

I’m not suggesting the incident did not happen or should not be referred to.

I don’t agree that Bartlett’s refusal to comment beyond apologising “for causing offence” at the time, means he is therefore automatically guilty of every accusation thrown his way.

The lengthy quote from Ferris is inappropriate especially as there is no quote from Bartlett himself or any reference to comments by other senators who witnessed the incident such as in this Sydney Morning Herald article http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/09/1076175091543.html?from=storyrhs where Liberal Senator Brett Mason, is quoted as saying "Perhaps a little more was made of the incident than should have been made.  I think it was overplayed by the media, and by everyone.” (That article by the way does also contain quotes from Bartlett himself.) Or even in the Bulletin article you refer to, ALP Senator Claire Moore is quoted as saying of Bartlett “He has been absolutely, unfairly demonized.”

Wikipedia, by emphasizing that one incident to the degree it does and by the one sided way that section is written, seems to be accepting and following a sensationalist media line rather than maintaining an unbiased balanced stance that I personally think is more appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Anyway I’ve said what I think and as you’ve said you won’t allow further change I’ll leave it now. --Flora Morton 06:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Politicians who blog
I'm not sure that this article really needs to include an ever-growing list of blogging politicians and cats. Perhaps we can put them into their own cat, and stick to the subject of the article. --Jumbo 05:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You have negative stuff about a living person that is uncited
Are you sure the info here is true? Timmy12 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Election campaign "news"
We have a clearly biased contributor who insists on using Wikipedia as a means of crass promotion for a forthcoming election campaign, despite the fact that only perhaps 1% of readers are remotely interested in the election, let alone in the prospects of a player who has no chance at all of being re-elected. Please desist from this nonsense or the emphasis may need to be switched to how much of the rest of the Bartlett article can be justified on informational grounds. --Bjenks 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert of drunken episode changes
I reverted some recent edits by IP 139.130.39.54 regarding Bartlett's drunken episode. Reasons for the revert: I disagreed that a reliable reference (The Age) was removed; some of the changes varied from the reference (ie apology to Ferris was changed to "public apology"); added info about Meg Lees seat seemed irrelevant compared to the party's overall popularity.-- Lester  02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Andrew Bartlett. 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/20100714021318/http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/andrew-bartlett-blog to http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/andrew-bartlett-blog
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020233108/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au:80/piweb/translatewipilink.ASPX?Folder=HANSARDS&Criteria=DOC_DATE:2004-08-12;SEQ_NUM:320; to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/translatewipilink.ASPX?Folder=HANSARDS&Criteria=DOC_DATE:2004-08-12;SEQ_NUM:320;
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825013952/http://www.vibewire.net/3/node/4337 to http://www.vibewire.net/3/node/4337

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) 03:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)