Talk:Rob Oakeshott

Education
Can this entry be updated to state that Mr Oakeshott completed a Bachelor of Laws from Macquarie University? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.171.160.133 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done it. --Rofish (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rofish. Do you have a source that we can cite? Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 11:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

When did he go nat->ind?
Current text: On 9 March, 2001, at the Port Macquarie electoral committee meeting, he left the National Party.

Antony says: Oakeshott resigned from the National Party in March 2002.

The smh cite does not mention 2001 or 2002. I'm changing the text. Timeshift (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The 2001 date was a mistake I made in including information from his NSW Parliamentary bio page. It says 9 March 2002. I defer to the eminent Mr Green! Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 10:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It begs the question why did he leave the National Party (the Nationals)? The Nationals seem to be very good at producing independents. There are currently three in the House of Representatives and a number in the NSW Legislative Assembly. In my view, a reasonably capable parliamentary leader of the Nats would be doing all possible to get these independents back in to the Nationals fold, by such methods as negotiation and even a little bit of compromise. Any thoughts people??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingteesdale (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, no? How does this relate to article improvement? Timeshift (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It relates a hell of a lot!! Mr O is an ex nat (one of a number). It begs the question does it not; why have a significant number of nats become independents??? Is this a problem for the nats - a sign perhaps that their leaders can not for the (political) life of them, negotiate and solve problems??? A member who has jumped ship is a problem and a big one for a party. It publically spells divisions and disagreements. Not what a party needs when it is trying to win elections and increase the number of seats it holds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingteesdale (talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It is not the job of these talk pages or the articles here to sort out the problems of the National Party. There are two reasons given in the article for Mr Oakeshott's departure: 1. The lack of youth in the party. 2. Its position on the establishment of an Australian Republic. Beyond that it is not our job to provide analysis. If you want to discuss NSW politics, I sincerely suggest you join a forum. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 10:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're debating the issue - so no, it does not relate 'a hell of a lot', it doesn't relate at all. The talk pages are for discussing article improvements, not waxing on about your views. Do it on your userpage if you want (like I do). Timeshift (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

He resigned on 9 March 2002. See Orderinchaos 04:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute
New user Enidblyton11 wants to keep adding the following:

On 10 August 2010 it was reported in The Australian that Mr Oakeshott sought a ministy in the NSW State Government when Morris Iemma was Premier.

Oakeshott denies this. Should it be in this article, and if so, how should it be worded? At the bare minimum this needs a severe rewording. Timeshift (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A spokesman for Mr Oakeshott said last night he had "no recollection whatsoever of being in a conversation with Morris Iemma about a ministerial position in 2007" - that's not denying it happened, just that he can't remember any such conversation. He's a smart guy, he knows what words mean, and he chose his words carefully.  Maybe he didn't speak with Iemma directly, but ...
 * It was reported on 10 September, not 10 August.
 * It's ministry, not ministy. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See here. The only outlet reporting it is The Australian. In this article which seems to have an agenda, it does have this "Earlier yesterday, Mr Oakeshott told The Weekend Australian the story was "bullshit" and accused this newspaper of running "an agenda" against him."


 * My issue is that we are including it as verifiable truth when so far only one media organisation is questionably reporting it. Should we be including it at this time? And not just that, but if we are going to include it, it is in dire need of a vast rewording to accommodate for such a risky WP:BLP violation. Timeshift (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that editorial the other week where the Australian stated it regards its role as being to destroy the Greens, I'm not even sure we should consider it as an RS any more. Re the Oakeshott matter - I think if Iemma has not said it and Oakeshott denies it, it can be put down to the usual rumour and innuendo that floats around politics. Orderinchaos 04:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Reported by one outlet with a stated agenda, denied by Oakeshott himself, no strong evidence to the contrary - BLP demands that it stay out. Rebecca (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In general I agree with Rebecca, but Jack of Oz makes a good point that Oakeshott may have been choosing his words carefully to avoid a blanket denial. I'd be interested to see the "bullshit" quote in full context. For now, probably it should be omitted. Incidentally, I'm with Orderinchaos on The Australian's status as a RS - it really seems more interested in creating the news than reporting it - reminds me of a phase it went through in the 90s. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it would absolutely not surprise me if he was. But in the absence of reliable sources stating what happened, and what is essentially a denial from Oakeshott, yeah. Rebecca (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors will note that I've referenced an article by Paul Sheehan from today's SMH on this same topic "Far from an outsider or innocent". I've only used it because it mentions Oakeshott's job as with Coalition public relations, but as the general thrust of the article is similar to the one discussed here, I thought I should note it. Blarneytherinosaur gabby?

Oh, and I totally missed the paragraph that mentions him doing work experience with Philip Ruddock. Have mentioned that in the article too. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 00:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected
As this article on a living person is currently experiencing a consistently high level of vandalism, I've semi-protected it for a week. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"I should never have joined the Nats"
Interesting article and would be good to include some of the contents in to this article. Timeshift (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Thanks for mentioning it. I found the article independently and have added a bit about his joining the Nats and subsequent dissatisfaction. There may be other points worth including too. Blarneytherinosaur gabby? 21:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAPy
Copied from diff

Regarding the text that you'd like in the Rob Oakeshott article. I removed it because it is clearly not in a neutral voice. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX; poll results on singular issues are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I note that neutrality on the Rob Oakeshott article has been discussed with you before... &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The wording that is being insisted on is not neutral. The intent is to attack the subject of this article. Further, the text suggested relies on a poll on a spot issue and is simply not acceptable for inclusion on a biography. Have people changed their minds since? Have people's positions changed? Of course they have. A spot poll on a singular issue is simply not encyclopedic per WP:SOAPBOX.

Separately, removing the above without response and reverting, is not a part of the WP:BRD process. I've reverted User:Maturescence again. We're at the discussion phase. I'm posting this over to WP:AUS also. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken (and frankly presumptuous as to my intent) in suggesting the intent of the wording is to “attack the subject of this article”. The ‘subject of this article’ may not like the results of the poll, but that is no reason to exclude them (Wiki are not his PR agents).


 * Let me remind you of the wording:


 * “Of Mr Oakeshott's decision to help Labor form a minority government, 61 per cent of his constituents did not support the move, while 32 per cent did. A Newspoll taken a week after last year's election found that 52 per cent of voters in Lyne wanted their independent MP to support a coalition minority government, while 38 per cent backed Labor.”


 * This is a simple factual statement which you claim “is clearly not in a neutral voice”. Where is the partisan wording? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maturescence (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC))


 * WP:AGF can only apply so far. The IP who first added that text's POV is showing pretty clearly here, so the intent is to portray Oakeshott in a negative light.


 * That being said, it's not the point as to whether it reflects negatively on the subject; it's more the point that it's not neutral in tone. The language has to be changed to be more neutral. I'm not changing it because I can't see a way that it can be made neutral.


 * Wikipedia is not a WP:NEWSPAPER; there is no enduring notability to a poll taken on a single issue however long ago. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX designed for advocacy on various issues. It is solely an encyclopedia. The text proposed does not fit the bill. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We all know that The Australian are against the minority Labor government, and even published a piece attacking the Greens and indicated their intentions to destroy the Greens at the ballot box. In light of this, The Oz is often not considered a WP:RS by wikipedia users. If new content is disputed, then it is incumbent upon the adder to get consensus from the talk page, not the other way around. Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not to mention this edit to the same article by the same user just over a year ago. Orderinchaos 07:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What I find amusing is that people think independents should lean toward one party or another. Independent is just that, independent. If people think that the electorate was duped because they backed a Labor government, despite their long-standing policy platforms erring more toward Labor ideology than Liberal ideology, then they must have rocks in their heads. Timeshift (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference to betting companies
I would be interested in getting another opinion on whether the reference to Oakeshott's odds in Federal Parliament \First term section is entirely in the interests of the encyclopedia - "...and was placed at $1.16 by Centrebet and $1.15 by Sportingbet to take the seat". Is the informative content worth promoting the interests of gambling agencies? Squab chowder (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, it wasn't encyclopedic, and it wasn't even sourced. I've deleted the sentence. Good catch! Welcome to Wikipedia. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Rob studying medicine at Wollongong Uni
Should this be included (http://medicalrepublic.com.au/medical-rebirth-politicians-patients-doctors/6732)? Seems pretty important 132.234.229.230 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)