Talk:Stuart Robert

Cleanup required
The article appears to be heavily referenced from the subject person's own website, and refers to him by first name not last name. --Scott Davis Talk 03:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Watoto Australia
"Gay and lesbian activists say Watoto and Mr Skinner are virulently anti-gay and have contributed to violent homophobia in Uganda. Mr Robert – who was also a member of Watoto's International Board – has travelled to the Ugandan capital Kampala many times to meet Mr Skinner, who says homosexuality is "degrading" and an "inhuman sin" that brings disease and destroys families.

On at least two occasions Mr Robert charged taxpayers for the travel, with the bill totalling almost $20,000. On two other occasions he declared free travel to Africa on his register of interests, paid for by Watoto."

etc

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-mp-stuart-roberts-close-ties-to-antigay-african-church-20160930-grsgi8.html

60.242.247.177 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

block quote deleted
I have deleted the following block quote as puffery/peacocking/promotional/non-NPOV (call it what you will):

“the reason that millions were able to get access and support through both particularly for the JobSeeker payment over the course of the pandemic, was a direct result of that Minister's ability to scale up and put in place one of the most significant responses we've ever seen from a social security agency in this country in our history.

''He's been appointed to this job because he's done an outstanding job in the one that he's been doing. And, you know, when someone does a good job like that, then they show that they can take on responsibility, they can get things done for Australians. So for all of those who could get through to those lines, for those who are calling right now on the floods, you know over 50 million people sorry, $50 million was paid out to flood victims last week. That happened because of what Stuart Robert was able to put in place at Services Australia. It was a phenomenal achievement. People can now, when they ring, you be paid within, within half an hour.''

''That was first established during the bushfires when he did exactly the same thing. So when people have had to rely on him for services, rely on him for payments, rely on him to ensure that they could get up the next morning, know that that money would be in their bank account because that's what he was responsible for, then he has delivered for them. And that's why, that's why he's in my Cabinet, because he can be relied upon to deliver the services that Australians indeed rely on.”'

I have replaced it with a single sentence. Even that seems excessive to me, but as an improvement, I'll take it. Wayne 01:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted sentence implying deaths caused by subject.
I have just deleted the following passage: "Over 2000 people had died after receiving the debts, figures showed." (ref) https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-after-receiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272 (/ref)

The sentence makes an unsubstantiated and quite possibly libellous implication, that the subject is causally connected to the deaths. No analysis of the cause of the deaths is provided in the reffed article, and a spokesperson for the relevant department disputed the connection, although the refutation is not mentioned in the deleted claim. The sentence failed to apply the type of caution that is urged in WP:BLP. Wayne 22:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Attempted clean-up, reverted
Hi @HiLo48, you reverted this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stuart_Robert&diff=prev&oldid=1155184137

Let's discuss! Why do you think that Stuart Robert not attending a cancelled visit by Joe Biden should be included in the article?

I removed the words "Following his support for Scott Morrison's successful bid to become Prime Minister" from the sentence about him being appointed as Assistant Treasurer. My reading is that those words suggest a connection between his support for Scott Morrison's bid to become Prime Minister and his appointment that isn't supported by any sources. Do you have a different reading? Is there a source that supports this implication? Could we include his support for Scott Morrison elsewhere to avoid the implication?

I also cleaned up the Political Career section to make it more chronological, which you reverted. I'm interested in your perspective of why this more abstract format for the section is preferable.

Happy to move on to the 300-word section dedicated to his apparently former views on military superannuation indexation and women on the frontline of military service after we've settled the above matters. Cjhard (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Those were BIG changes. You have made this difficult to respond to by spreading YOUR response across both here and my Talk page. Why did you do that? Changing so many aspects of the article all at once also complicated things here. I think I'll copy your stuff from my Talk page to here, so others can see your thoughts. You really should have brought all your concerns here before you changed anything


 * Hey mate,


 * With this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stuart_Robert&action=edit&undoafter=1155184399&undo=1155189916 you just restored content that said that Stuart Robert won't be attending a visit by Joe Biden that won't be happening (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/17/quad-summit-meeting-cancelled-joe-biden-calls-off-australia-trip), an unsourced implication connecting Stuart Robert's Ministerial appointment with his support for Scott Morrison's bid to become Prime Minister, a 300 word section on his (previous?) views on indexing military superannuation and women in the frontlines of military service, and undid a restructure of the article so it makes any kind of sense whatsoever.


 * Maybe have a bit more of a think about what you're reading before rushing for the revert button, because you genuinely make Wikipedia a miserable experience to edit.


 * So, bit by bit... The issue with the Biden visit is that it's part of the larger fact that he is still officially a member of parliament. He has announced that he is "going to quit", but hasn't yet done so. (The strong belief is that is awaiting Scott Morrison announcing his resignation so that the two consequent byelections can held on the same day.) He is completely avoiding Canberra, even though he is still being paid. That absence included choosing to not be there when the leader of the world's most powerful nation and our closest ally was visiting. Things like that matter.


 * Common knowledge tells us that there is a connection between his support for Scott Morrison's bid to become Prime Minister and his appointment as a minister. That's how politics works. The PM is unlikely to appoint as a minister someone who opposed him.


 * Making the Political career section chronological is sensible. But that change was part of several others you made at at the same time, so hard to separate.


 * His position on women in the military is reactionary and archaic. It's an important part of his persona.


 * I recommend that you discuss the separate issues here one by one. Then, if others agree (give them plenty of time - several days), make the changes one at a time. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you reverted the edits based on 'strong belief', 'common knowledge' and that we should imply things about his persona that isn't supported by sources? What? And I'm not sure how differently I can convey to you that the Biden event was cancelled. The article says that in the future Stuart Robert will not attend an event that is not happening. Cjhard (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With the revert you just performed, you are edit warring, and not discussing. That's completely unacceptable. See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. HiLo48 (talk)
 * We can discuss if you have an objection that is based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines, until that time you're just stonewalling and there's nothing to discuss. And you still haven't addressed the fact that you're advocating for the article to include a sentence saying that Stuart Robert is not attending an event that isn't happening. Cjhard (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha ha ha. If you think that's a point scoring strategy, you really are scratching the bottom of the barrel. When he made the relevant announcement, the event WAS happening. All of this goes towards showing people what kind of a person he is. He put his refusal to represent his constituents in parliament ahead of showing respect to the US president. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)