Talk:Western Australian Development Corporation

Neutrality of wording
Surely we can write more neutrally than: "... enabled Burke's WA Inc Labor government to involve itself ... without the normal transparency and accountability of government-guaranteed corporations". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that sentence is actually neutral, as well as simple and factual. Any perceived problem must arise from the very blatant and corrupt nature and structuring of the WADC itself, not from this terse description. To verify this, compare the following more emotive citation from Tony Barrass (a very respected senior writer). However, when this new stub article is further developed, it should not be necessary for the lead paragraph to be so compressed and packed with the wikilinks which are essential to understanding this discredited corporation, which took a decade to be wound up and abolished in 1998. Bjenks (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, after re-reading the lead section, and reading the refs, I withdraw my objections. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)