Talk:Derryn Hinch/Archives/2019

3 year senate term
Hinch's allocation of a 3 year senate seat rather than a 6 year senate seat was a controversial move that got front page coverage and probably halved the length of his political career. It is not my "point of view". It is a fact. Oz freediver (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * So how does this work? Am I supposed to wait for Tim to respond before changing it back? He is now undoing other very old references to this by trying to dismiss simple facts as my point of view. Oz freediver (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I just undid Tim's reversion. He has not responded here or to my post on hist talk page, but has been active. I'll undo all the others shortly too. I have tried to use as neutral language as possible, and copied the style from other wikipedia articles on this issue, where myself and others (including Tim) have gone over it several times to come up with appropriate language. Oz freediver (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I just had another go at undoing Tim's reverts. He gave a different excuse for reverting them this time. I have also been trying to get him to discuss the matter on this talk page, but no luck so far. I added a lot of sources. Oz freediver (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I've replied on my talkpage but just posting here to note that this editor has been campaigning on this matter for years with their own site saying:
 * Wikipedia also followed suit in not mentioning key details, and it took some effort by the author to get Wikipedia to acknowledge details of the problem and its history, such as the broken bipartisan senate resolutions.
 * The addition has been reverted due to WP:POINT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS amongst others. Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Earth to Tim: they are simple, undisputed facts. Nothing I posted in the article is a point of view. I have told you this repeatedly and you have not responded. If you are too simple or lazy to understand what you are editing, then do not edit it. It should not be my responsibility to seek out other editors (as you suggested I do on your talk page) to make up for your stubbornness and unwillingness to understand what you are deleting. Other editors have already had to step in previously and put you in your place, which they did, and you are oblivious to it. You are also terribly confused about what a point of view is. Just because a person has a strong interest in a topic does not magically turn a simple, undisputed truth spoken by them into a point of view. If you put as much effort into understanding the topic and explaining what your real concern is, rather than researching unrelated sites this would be over in no time. Criticism you stumbled across elsewhere of the mindless drones administering wikipedia is completely irrelevant to my edits on the Derryn Hinch page. None of the excuses you have offered so far have had anything to do with the edits I actually made. Oz freediver (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is my latest attempt:

In 2015, Hinch established Derryn Hinch's Justice Party, and was subsequently elected to the Australian Senate as senator for Victoria at the 2016 double dissolution election on 2 July 2016. He became the oldest person ever newly elected to the Australian parliament. A 6 year Senate term would have gone to Hinch had the Senate abided by bipartisan Senate resolutions of 1998 and 2010 on the allocation of seats. Instead, Liberal's Mathias Cormann and Labor's Penny Wong agreed to hand the 6 year term to Liberal's Scott Ryan, with Hinch getting a shorter 3 year term. Labor also gained a 6 year term under the agreement.

Reference two for example says: In both 1998 and 2010, the Senate voted in favour of using the recount method following future double dissolutions.

Everything in my edit is a simple, undisputed and verifiable fact Tim, if you would bother considering the edit itself rather than this "campaign" of yours.


 * Wikipedia does not involve itself in counterfactuals, e.g. what would have happened if Scenario X had occurred. We report what did actually occur. That is the only relevant thing here.
 * But, as background, the Senate is entitled to decide how the allocation of seats is determined, and that can change whenever the Senate is minded to do so. The way the matter was settled after the 2016 DD election was exactly the same as occurred after every other DD election. Whatever alternative resolutions, agreements etc may have been entered into in the interim have been rendered null and void.
 * There may be an argument for Wikipedia reporting the Section 282 resolution that was later overturned. But not in this article, simply because that decision was not about Derryn Hinch. Making it appear to be about Hinch, as you wish to do, is POV of the worst kind.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * All the media reporting was about Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon, the two senators who took their 6 year seats (Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neil), and the two senators who negotiated this (Penny Wong and Matthias Cormann). The 1998 and 2010 resolutions are things that actually happened. The 2016 vote is something that actually happened. The controversy over the difference between the two, reported in all major newspapers, is something that actually happened. It halved Derryn's Senate term. It is simply not possible to understand what happened without reference to the past events such as the senate resolutions, because they were the only reason for the disagreement about these two particular 6 year seats. If a Senators finds himself at the centre of a constitutional crisis and has their senate term affected by it, it becomes part of their story.


 * Childish as it is, I'll follow up with the other wiki admins who helped me to get the same edits through previously on several other pages, including O'Neil's and Ryan's, seeing as Tim seems to have a personal mission against me making the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Disclosure: I was invited to this discussion by Oz freediver. I was also part of the discussion a few years ago at Talk:Members of the Australian Senate, 2016–2019 that covered the same issue.
 * This article should state (with reference) that Hinch's term was 3 years, as determined by the senate sitting soon after the double-dissolution election.
 * There was no "constitutional crisis", and the senate was free to make the determination in any way it chose. The key references are the three at the end of the second paragraph of Members of the Australian Senate, 2016–2019:
 * I'm not sure it needs three references, and I don't necessarily think it needs to be "controversial" or a "crisis". The Members article gives full detail about how the decision was reached. The Guardian says there was agreement between the major parties; The Australian calls the countback method (the one that would have given Hinch a 6-year term) "controversial" and refers to "...a deal between Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong"; The Sydney Morning Herald says the Greens called it unfair, and that Hinch threatened legal action (but as far as I know he did not follow through on the threat) and proposed a third allocation method. Three references for one sentence in this article seems extreme, but I don't mind which is chosen.
 * I inserted two sentences with The Guardian reference, as that is the one with Hinch's name in the headline. --Scott Davis Talk 04:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Scott. I have added a link to the other wikipedia article that explains the details, with some short text that I hope is sufficiently neutral. Oz freediver (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I also just added in a reference to the ABC article, which should probably go on the other wikipedia entries also, as it offers a more detailed explanation of the senate resolutions, though unfortunately the link (in the ABC article) is broken. If anyone is interested I have copies of a lot of the media and .gov.au articles that may have since been moved, deleted, paywalled etc. Oz freediver (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just reworded it, and made similar edits to Lee_Rhiannon, the other victim senator. Oz freediver (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have made similar edits to Deborah_O%27Neill and Scott_Ryan_(Australian_politician), the two "senate thieves". I also plan to edit Penny_Wong and Mathias_Cormann, who were the two puppet masters in this diabolical plan to undermine Australia's constitution. Oz freediver (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * See, this is where your POV is on naked display. You and others may not have liked what happened, but it was completely within the Senate's right and prerogative to determine the matter the way it did. Calling it a "diabolical plan to undermine Australia's constitution" is just ridiculous. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's why they call it a talk page. To be fair, I should point out that that is just your opinion. Oz freediver (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest Jack - in your opinion, did the framers of our constitution actually intend for a majority coalition of senators to pick and choose the method that gave them extra seats in the senate? And a supplementary question: Would you trust me more, or would my edits have more merit or a greater air of objectivity if I concealed my motives? The reason I ask is that I see an unusal culture developing here, exemplified by Timroll Pickering, whereby the discovery that other editors are real people with opinions about the articles they edit is sufficient justification for deleting their edits without giving any thought or explanation regarding the merits of the edits themselves. Your are moralising the rules - in the same way Australian fishermen have moralised rules regarding minimum sizes (which are a poor choice of fisheries management tool) into a false narrative about catching released fish when they grow bigger and a personal moral code about fish size. Oz freediver (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone here is qualified to say what the framers of our constitution intended. That's for the High Court to decide. There have been probably only a handful of votes in the entire history of our parliament where nobody's nose was left out of joint. That's the way "majority rules" works in the parliament, and that was definitely something the founding fathers put into the constitution in black and white.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I am qualified, on account of having common sense. The framers intended it to be handled by convention in a predictable manner. They did not intend senators to make it up after the election results come in and for the senate majority coalition to give themselves extra seats. The Senators have manipulated what should have been an orderly transition between methods to maintain two options, undermining the constitution in the process. This is affecting election outcomes, affecting the legislation that can be passed, and may require constitutional reform to correct. Simply dismissing it as being "within the constitution" is weasel words for the undermining of our democracy. Oz freediver (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I dislike the current wording as it tends to make it sound like this was a personal ganging up against Derryn Hinch, rather than a generalised attempt to reduce the size of the crossbench. As far as the history of Derryn Hinch (the topic of this article) goes, the key point is that he was allocated a 3-year term. It's OK (but probably unnecessary) to say he wanted a six-year term. Handled by convention is exactly what the outcome is of doing it the same way as every other time the situation has arisen. --Scott Davis Talk 03:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

''I am qualified, on account of having common sense. '' That is absolute proof that these edits are all about you, User:Oz freediver, inserting your own personal point of view into WP articles. That is contrary to WP:NPOV and therefore inappropriate. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It does not prove anything. Just to give you something to get your panties in a twist over, I am on a personal wikipedia campaign to correct the omissions of relevant wikipedia articles on this issue and give it it's due attention. None of this is relevant to the merits of my edits. You continue to put the cart before the horse on this. I can confidently tell you, without even reading wikipedia's rules, that identifying a personal campaign is by itself not grounds for deleting someone's edits, and whatever rules they do have on this are secondary to the merits of the edits themselves. Such is the power of common sense. I'll leave you to read the fine print.


 * "By convention" is strictly true, but completely misses the point and is weasel words for what happened. See for example previous discussion at Talk:Members_of_the_Australian_Senate,_2016–2019


 * You are welcome to add a description that it was a generalised attempt to reduce the size of the cross bench. But I suspect even that is a mischaracterisation. It was simply each of the two parties giving themselves an extra senate seat from 2019. In the previous DD election for example it was Labor and the Democrats who got the extra seat. It was just a coincidence this time that the two major parties benefited. I have not seen any indication that any party or senator would take the higher moral ground on this. It is a constitutional crisis and will continue to happen unless something is done to fix it. It undermine's the role of the senate by concentrating power into the hands of those parties that already have a majority of senate seats.


 * The key point is not that he was allocated a three year term. Half of the state senators were awarded a three year term without controversy. They all wanted a 6 year term. What makes these two cases (Hinch and Rhiannon) different is the controversy arising from the choice between the two methods and the two bipartisan senate resolutions of 1998 and 2010 to use the new method. Simply stating he was given a 3 year term omits key facts that are of public interest and which were controversial and widely reported at the time.


 * If you don't mind, I will include the discussion of all four Senators here - Hinch, Rhiannon, O'Neill and Ryan, since it is all really the same issue and part of this campaign that you think is all about me rather than Australia's constitution and the effectiveness of the senate in fulfilling its role. Regarding Ryan and O'Neill, the two "thief senators," I prefer your edits to the O'Neill page over your Ryan edits as they capture the significance of this particular seat allocation, and has the internal wikipedia links to more info. I will make a similar edit to the Ryan page. I will also change the reference from the guardian to the ABC as the ABC article has more detail, though I am happy to keep both if there is something in the guardian article you like.


 * I think you mangled the Rhiannon edits, splitting the discussion over two paragraphs with a different topic (Bob Brown) in between them. You also included irrelevant detail about what a double dissolution means, which is better handled with an internal link. Rhiannon's page should be similar to Hinch's on this (as they are the two victim senators). For our convenience:


 * Deborah_O%27Neill
 * Lee_Rhiannon
 * Scott_Ryan_(Australian_politician)


 * Come over to the dark side Scott. Join my campaign to make wikipedia better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 02:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no need to join the dark side. I can upset minor parties of all persuasions by reducing the electioneering in their articles. --Scott Davis Talk 07:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the articles on the four senators need to refer to the other senator the six year seat was taken from or given to. The O'Neill and Ryan articles previously said something like "at the expense of ... getting a three year term." Oz freediver (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The similar situation in 1987 is described in Members of the Australian Senate, 1987–1990, but not in the articles about each senator. That seems appropriate to me. --Scott Davis Talk 15:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Next on my list is Mathias Cormann, and Penny Wong's origami swan. Oz freediver (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As "leader in the house" of their respective parties, it was entirely appropriate and not at all remarkable that they were the people who represented their parties in the discussions before it reached the open floor. That decision was not a significant point in their careers. --Scott Davis Talk 12:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's just your opinion Scott.Oz freediver (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I think this topic needs a page of it's own somewhere to put all the various details in. I tried previously on Commonwealth_Electoral_Act_1918 but it is too much for one bullet point. It currently spans two separate elections, the act, and the senators affected in 2016. And it will no doubt come up again in the next few double dissolution elections, as I don't see any momentum to fix it. Oz freediver (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see it in a page of its own than being wedged into many other pages where it mostly doesn't matter. Then al these other pages you've been adding stuff to can be cut back to only having one sentence about it with a link to Australian senate terms following whole-senate elections (or a better, shorter name). --Scott Davis Talk 14:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding names, I have previously created Section_282_Commonwealth_Electoral_Act but it got deleted. We could go with a longer one like "stalled changes to convention for...". Or something short and snappy like "Australia's ongoing constitutional crisis." I like the last one as it better captures the gravity of the situation.Oz freediver (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Terminology from aph.gov.au: Rotation of senators after a double dissolution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver (talk • contribs) 00:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The new article got knocked back by the admin who instructed me to discuss merging it here: Talk:Double_dissolutionOz freediver (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Derryn Hinch. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fifthestate.rmit.edu.au/2004-06hinchint.php
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fifthestate.rmit.edu.au/under-the-hammer.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071208145409/http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22879965-5001021,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22879965-5001021,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hinch.net/says_archive05/Mar05/23-3-05.htm

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) 00:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Derryn Hinch. 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://archive.is/20130627220120/http://www.thevine.com.au/entertainment/news/oh-boy-derryn-hinch-has-signed-on-for-rocky-horror/ to http://www.thevine.com.au/entertainment/news/oh-boy-derryn-hinch-has-signed-on-for-rocky-horror/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22879965-5001021,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315122138/http://www.au.timeout.com/sydney/the-bridge/features/7657/jacki-weaver to http://www.au.timeout.com/sydney/the-bridge/features/7657/jacki-weaver
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720174040/http://www.hinch.net/says_archive07/Apr07/30-4-07.html to http://www.hinch.net/says_archive07/Apr07/30-4-07.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720200759/http://www.hinch.net/says_archive06/Nov06/6-11-06.html to http://www.hinch.net/says_archive06/Nov06/6-11-06.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721085051/http://www.hinch.net/says_archive06/Oct06/30-10-06.html to http://www.hinch.net/says_archive06/Oct06/30-10-06.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100926173751/http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/20/hinch-announces-he-has-cancer-on-air/ to http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/09/20/hinch-announces-he-has-cancer-on-air/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831021944/http://www.wikicelebrities.com/index.php?title=Derryn_Hinch to http://www.wikicelebrities.com/index.php?title=Derryn_Hinch

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) 08:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Only married and divorced Jacki Weaver once, not twice
See this edit to Jacki Weaver's page. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary says:
 * Per Jacki Weaver herself on the Aussies in Hollywood podcast (6 Jun 2019): "There's one thing that I find vaguely irritating is that it says that I divorced Derryn Hinch twice and married him twice; I didn't do any such thing. I, um, I mean I'm not that stupid. [laughs] I, we only got divorced once, but we did renew our vows, and I think people thought that was a second wedding.")

I'll make the change. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)