Talk:Andrew Hastie/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modifications July 2017

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Hastie (politician). 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/20150923174042/http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Publications/Australian-Army-Journal/Past-editions/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2011Winter/02-CounterinsurgencyInUruz.pdf to http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Publications/Australian-Army-Journal/Past-editions/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2011Winter/02-CounterinsurgencyInUruz.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Notes on style and tone for a biography of a living person December 2019

It's true, I have done almost all the biographical work for the entry on William Cooper and for Thomas Shadrach James. I am applying the same approach to this contemporary subject, the political figure Andrew Hastie.

I am very much open to having facts checked, sources looked at, and language aligned with the principles outlined by Wikipedia on writing for a biographical figure who is still living.

I saw this article and noticed that it lacked a lot of information which is now known about this public figure, so I have taken time to fill in the blanks.

To revert, quite blankly, removing all the work contributed, several hundred words, does not seem to be in the collegial spirit of Wikipedia.

I would also ask that we all note that the version of this page from just a few days ago had very few citations. I have now given it several dozen.

It doesn't seem fair, given the care I have put in to arranging the information and providing good sources, to be dismissed as "a hot mess."

I intend to persist with making the fix-ups. And I would appreciate it if the feedback was more constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erasmus Sydney (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I've twice pointed out the kind of language that's more appropriate to a cover letter for a job or an election campaign leaflet than an encyclopedia article. Please don't re-add it. The problem beyond the completely inappropriate tone of all the pre-military career changes is that they're adding more information about things that we already have too much irrelevant stuff and needs to be pruned: his ancestry isn't really notable at all (what does his grandparents being war veterans have to do with him?) and the section about his military career has way too much trivia that doesn't add much while being wordy and unclear about the 2013 incident. It definitely needs to be better written and to have the sourcing improved, but more trivia isn't the solution.

Wikipedia editors aren't paid. If you make the occasional okay edit in a swathe of edits adding rubbish like the above, we've basically got no choice but to revert it because Wikipedia doesn't have the technical means to separate out any useful stuff besides a line-by-line manual salvage attempt, which is not a good use of our time. On the other hand, if you drop the cover letter/election pamphlet stuff (and preferably stop adding yet more detail about trivial stuff, though that's more debatable) and focus on refining the article, that's something we can work with. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of editorialising December 2019

The political career section now has the same problem with large amounts of stuff that's basically trivia being added, though I'm leaving it because at least it's not biased trivia. The dot points aren't done on Wikipedia and need to be converted into prose. Politicians vote for many bills, and there's no explanation as to why those bills (and Hastie's stance on them as opposed to every other Coalition MP) would be notable. The "Initiatives" sections are tricky: every government funding commitment in Canning is not notable enough to be in his article, nor is there any evidence that Hastie specifically had anything to do with most of them (beyond the inevitable press release). It's also very easy to wind up adopting the language and spin of their press secretaries: e.g. "Launch of Regional Employment Trials for region, grants of up to $200,000 to up-skill local jobseekers" conveniently doesn't mention that it's associated with the rollout of the cashless welfare card specifically in his electorate as a "trial region". The committee work warrants mentioning but can be done in two sentences of prose. How much he spoke in parliament also isn't necessarily notable unless there's a source saying it was astronomically high or low.

Hastie isn't a typical backbencher, and most of this run-of-the-mill, could-be-in-any-backbencher's-article-interchangeably stuff isn't really relevant to Hastie. It just needs to explain dispassionately what his views are and to try to explain his sort-of-gadfly role on foreign affairs and security issues. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover’s Wife: Thanks for the feedback. I'll remove the dot points and go for prose. I think I'll review the initiatives so only the ones that come out of a particular political position are mentioned, and that they include the controversies (such as the training funds being paired with drug testing). He speaks more than average and I do have a source for that, so will include. The subject is not the usual back bencher, so will expand in the views section. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover’s Wife: Look one other thing, I'm going to add some stuff on his political position, but a lot of it is actually informed by his combat experience, where he felt badly let down by the fast-victory rubric of the neo-cons and the "nation-building" mythology of Obama and Secretary Clinton. So I think expanding on the military section is warranted so the political outlooks, especially the fixation with "Sovereignty" rather than internationalism makes some sense. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I'd caution against there is to watch out for editorialising in your own voice and Wikipedia:Original research. If a take on his position hasn't been reported in reliable sources that aren't just regurgitating hagiography in the same vein as the "service" stuff, or if you're having to grasp at a random columnist's comment to source it to, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, even it might be right - ideally other people (including Hastie himself) have made that connection in multiple times. He's such an outspoken figure that if it's notable it's surely got to have been seriously talked about somewhere. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover’s Wife: Yes. "if it's notable it's surely got to have been seriously talked about somewhere". I think that's to be the guiding principle. Thank you.

Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover’s Wife: Okay, I've rebuilt the military section, there's a bit more meat there now, which sets up some of the political stuff later, like the fact that the subject has such a low view of "nation building." I'm going to get on to re-doing the political section now. Stand by. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that's hugely improved over the previous version as it really gets to the key points instead of giving us a running resume of the details of every unit and role he ever performed. The only issue is that the SAS section is probably over-egging the physical intensity of the course: I don't know that we need six sentences and a quote to basically say "he did the course and it was very hard", though the first half of it seems like useful explanation. Someone joining the SAS because they want to go after the bad guys is presumably not an unusual or notable motivation for doing so, so doesn't really warrant a blockquote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover’s Wife: Hey thanks for the feedback. I think I'm starting to get the hang of it now. I will look at the length. Of those sections. Really grateful for the interaction. So, thank you and Merry Christmas. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hopes for future writing December 2019

This subject is significant because of the current role played in so many Federal laws regarding espionage and foreign influence. The military experience is pertinent to this, but needs further fixing up. What's important is to move on to the legislative and political outlook material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erasmus Sydney (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

No argument from me there (as long as "fixing up" isn't more military trivia) - with the caveat that if you try to rewrite the section about his political career in the fawning tone you did the early life stuff, it'll be reverted in a heartbeat. The political career section needs a ton of work and it'd be great to see it do a decent job of explaining where Hastie fits in the scheme of things, because he's a complex guy and it doesn't really get to it very well. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very complex figure indeed. Not easily placed. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife:@TheBardofPeel:@Redleigh3565:@Frickeg Sydney: This subject will, I have no doubt, grow in the year ahead. Would be great to have the insights grow too. I think that the complexity is really coming out now. Thanks for everyone's input and guidance. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixing up references February 2020

Hi, I can see that there's a lot of work happening in the main body of the article which is great (even I, as a frequent but casual user, picked up on the tones of some the backstory which included a lot of possibly unverified and conversational sort of info), but I just wanted to bring attention to the references of the page. Any references which relied on The Australian or Daily Telegraph as a source only have a link to the subscription page to the site (see [4], [5], [36] or [54] for examples). There is also another instance of the reference only taking you to the main page ([13] - unforgiving60), so if more details regarding the title and any other identifying information could be provided that would be great. Also, I wanted to draw your attention to the transcript of the subject's speeches in Hansard (e.g. his inaugural speech on 13 October 2015, link => https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22chamber/hansardr/b1239e0c-7fca-43e4-aac5-25ac64e2bc96/0128%22) which might provide a good source for some of the biographical information you're including. I'd only note that it might be worth using language like "Mr Hastie reports being close to his grandmother" rather than him "being especially close to his grandmother" because then it shows that you're relying on your sources, rather than implying that it's your own observations and conclusions. Just a thought. Thanks for your hard work on this one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.60.179 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi there mysterious "References" commenter. I used the automatic citation script throughout, and that worked fine for anything from SMH or The Age or ABC, but it coughs up a subscription message for anything from Herald Sun, The Australian or The Daily Telegraph. So, I've gone and re-entered those citations manually. With regards to the Unforgiving 60, yes, I'm afraid you just need to listen to the episode on Andrew Hastie, that's where the material is. I did enter the proper Hansard reference for the first speech material where you mentioned, and referred back to Hastie rather than just stating the claim, thanks for pointing that out. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-write December 2019

The attempted rewrite of this article was a hagiographical hot mess, with language like:

• "Hastie has been described as a conviction politician. He is known as an advocate for investment in local communities, for the need to strengthen Australia's values and cultural institutions and for stronger protections to Australia's national security"
• "Service features strongly in Hastie's family of origin"
• "Whilst Hastie’s forebears came from England and Ireland, it is his heritage from Scotland[10] that has had particular influence...The school draws heavily on the teaching philosophy of Scottish reformers, who believed the purpose of education was to foster a spirit of community service, or 'higher learning for the common weal’. Hastie has said the school taught him that "life is not all about you. It's about serving others and improving the world around you."

We see some attempts at people who obviously have ties to article subjects spinning their work, but this one it so bad it reads like a cover letter for a job application in third person and doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any way, shape or form. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the tone is really off for the whole thing (I note you have been reverted). I encourage @Erasmus Sydney: to engage here in order to find a form in which some of this information may be usable. (This user's other contributions are, unexpectedly, William Cooper (Aboriginal Australian) and Thomas Shadrach James, which makes me think this might actually be someone overcorrecting on WP:BLP rather than a WP:COI situation.) Frickeg (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm genuinely baffled at the difference between his contributions to the Cooper article and this: I don't really understand how someone who's capable of doing decent work there can write something that quite literally reads like a third-person cover letter for a job if there's no COI involved. The tone used in that draft of the lede and in his pre-military career life is completely unacceptable in any article.

The edits to the military section appear to be in a more reasonable tone but that section has the already existing problem that it goes into far too much weight about minute details of his military career, and adding to it just makes it worse. The stuff about his general military career needs to be pruned, and the bit about the 2013 incident is awfully unclear for something described in that many words: we don't need nearly 200 words explaining Hastie's men's excuses for their actions in Hastie's article when it isn't alleged that Hastie had much to do with it besides being their commanding officer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. While I've done a bunch of editing (Yes, on leaders amongst Australia's Indigenous people) I haven't done a lot of interacting with other contributors. I don't think I've done much "talk before." Let me set out a couple of things.

1. I think some good points have been made. Like the one about "service features strongly" being, well, sort of forced, and there were a few other not-very-detached phrases. So I fixed them. (Then those fix ups were reverted, wholesale. Which for this contributor was quite deflating.)

2. I would defend the use of "conviction politician", it's a technical term in political science and has been used with regards to people like Margaret Thatcher and Richard Leonard and Nelson Mandala. With regards to the biographical figure in question, the phrase comes from a respected source, The Australian Financial Review.

3. I removed the "forebears came from England and Ireland" bit, it's true that was unnecessary.

4. The stuff about the 'common weal' (such a wonderful old phrase) I found is pertinent because the subject has something of a theme about service whether in the military or in public life, and it's curious as to where that may have come from, so I think it has its place.

5. I would like to find a form that stays in the dispassionate tone.

6. I agree that "the bit about the 2013 incident is awfully unclear", that was pre-existing and I was hoping to get to it.

7. I believe the military story is important because security and handling geo-political conflict is becoming so significant in the political life of this subject.

8. From here I will be making line-by-line updates then publishing. I think it's okay if I ask there are no more wholesale reversions. It means I lose all footnote citations I have gathered up.

9. Just about "What does his grandparents being war veterans have to do with him?" I would simply say that the articles about this subject indicate that the two grandfathers being military has been one of the most significant influences on this biographical subject, in terms of global outlook. In terms of the disposition to service, that seems to emanate from the maternal grandmother.

I have done work on progressive figures before, and here I am trying my hand at a conservative figure. Thank you for your feedback. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

2. "Conviction politician" is not a term used in political science, it's a term of opinion. It suggests that he's motivated by his convictions in a way that, say, Malcolm Turnbull or Anthony Albanese isn't. Columnists' personal opinions about current politicians are a dime a dozen and rarely notable.

4. The "theme about service" is opinion - you might believe it, and a biographer who was a fan might argue it, but it's not a neutral judgment and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

7. I don't dispute the military service is notable to a reasonable extent but we don't need a hyper-detailed blow-by-blow of every single posting in his career: he's got the kind of in-depth coverage of someone whose primary notability was as a soldier, not that of a then-non-notable soldier who then got elected to parliament and became an outspoken voice about defence and security issues. I'm not arguing that it be slashed, just that it be pruned a bit to cut down on the trivia.

8. Whether you do line-by-line edits or not is irrelevant because the Wikipedia software can't revert them individually once you've made other edits. Many people might try to salvage out of courtesy where much of it is at least lineball but the hagiography stuff has to go if you want people to bother.

9. Again, this is where the suggest text implies that he has a "disposition to service" more than any other politician - and that's very much a matter of opinion (and one that's unlikely to be reliably shared even on his own side of politics). I could see the relevance of mentioning that both his grandfathers served in the context of why he went into the military, but the specific details of their war service is irrelevant to a biographical about Hastie.

One further note - writing about a very controversial serving politician is an extremely different prospect from writing about a broadly lauded dead activist, and I think missing that distinction is a large part of what's leading you into a mess here. I'm sure some people didn't like William Cooper for whatever reason but he's hugely well-regarded across the political spectrum today and the overwhelming amount of reliable sources (of any persuasion) that I've ever seen write about him very positively. That absolutely doesn't work for Hastie (or anyone particularly controversial, you could substitute any serving Labor politician and it would apply equally): writing about Hastie in the tone most sources use for Cooper makes you sound like either Hastie's press secretary or the president of his fan club. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover’s Wife:

I think that’s good advice about writing on a controversial figure, and I think admitting that is probably the way forward. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Drover’s Wife:@Frikeg: So, just now I've done a small clean up of the two small sections after the introduction. I took advice and made the first one less about ancestry and more about the facts regarding family of origin. There are no biographical quotes here.

I've also done what I hope is a fairly dry outline of the parliamentary matters and committees this MP has been part of, as well as the local matters, which of course matter to people in that community. It needs a few more citations, some references to the criticisms and discussion of the issues, but I think I will add that at a later stage.

Thank you for your advice and thoughts. I am hoping we can keep to the wiki best practice protocol, which is that if you see any problem that we "improve it" by "balancing it" or adding citations. I did a read up on dispute resolution, which I guess is something we could move towards, but it sounds like a lot of time, and I'd rather just try to hear each other and improve the content. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with The Drover's Wife and Frickeg that part of this read way too much like a hagiography or frankly some PR put out by Andrew Hastie's campaign. I'm particularly concerned about the views section. This was clearly not the intention, but I wonder if one of the problems is trying to apply the same standard as for long deceased individuals as to a politician who is in office. It's far more difficult to find sources with an overall perspective/retrospective of the person and their life in situations like this, even more so since he is still relatively young. And frankly from what I've seen, the Australian media tends to be particularly poor at unbiased reporting. Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you @Nil Einne: that it is problematic to apply the same standards of identifying themes in someone's views when they are still living. We can only accept that this article on the subject is iterative. There is no biography on this person, and there are no memoirs to draw on. And yet it seems important, at least to this contributor, that we begin to see what this person's outlook is. I also agree that there are biases in the Australian media scene. I'm glad to say there is now a good spread of sources, including Australia's state broadcaster - the ABC; as well as The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian Financial Review; as well as global news outlets such as Haaretz and The New York Times; and with those some citations from centre-right publications such as The Australia, The Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixing up references part II February 2020 updates

There has been a clean up of the references done over the last few days, this was mostly in response to another wikipedian pointing out how annoying it is to have "subscription" messages in the citation. So, I think they are all gone now. There is a new chunk under the Sovereignty section, as that has been the major topic surrounding this subject in recent months, both here in Australia, the UK and in the US. The personal section has a corrective to the scuttlebutt that somehow the subject is a Pentecostal. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New proposed section On sovereignty China and America for March 2020

Two elements in the story of this subject need to find their place in the article. Firstly about the extraordinary step of using Parliamentary Privilege to name an Australian national as a corrupt person in relation to the workings of the United Nations. Second to outline the commitments of the subject to the American alliance. Therefore, @Skyring: @Mitch Ames: @MB: @Keith D: @St Anselm: @TheBardofPeel: @LordHello1: I propose the following content:

+ In May 2018, Hastie took the unexpected step of using parliamentary privilege to name a Chinese-Australian property developer as being a corrupt person acting in the interests of a foreign power, saying, "It is now my duty to inform the House and the Australian people that CC-3 is Chau Chak Wing, the same man who co-conspired to bribe the president of the United Nations General Assembly, John Ashe, the same man with extensive contacts in the Chinese Communist Party, including the United Front." The information had been given to the MP during meetings in the United States earlier that year. The move was criticised as throwing "a stick of dynamite into the government’s efforts to improve its “tense” relationship with China." Hastie himself believed he was compelled to speak as, "My duty, first and foremost, is to the Australian people and the preservation of the ideals and democratic traditions of our Commonwealth.”

+

File:AH and Gen Mattis.jpg

Hastie with General Jim Mattis outside the Pentagon on 4 May 2018

+

While the incident gave another example of the parliamentarian's determination to undo the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in Australia, his acting in consort with American military forces and intelligence agencies also provided more proof of his commitment to the U.S.-Australia alliance. At the high level, Hastie believes that this alliance is essential to Australia maintaining its sovereignty saying, “National leaders must affirm and articulate the values that define Western democracies, especially as we seek to build a coalition of like-minded partners to resist authoritarian political warfare.” However, the high premium Hastie places on Australia's relationship with the United States is more than geopolitical strategy. In his first speech, he explained that the alliance is almost a matter of family pride:

My grandfather on my father's side bequeathed to me the virtues of courage and love for my country. His example of bravery and devotion to duty under fire has always inspired me. A United States medic aboard the Catalina aircraft, a Virginian by the name of Sergeant O Maberry, managed to stabilise him and an American surgeon at Morotai Island saved his life. For my family, Australia's relationship with the United States has personal significance.

References

Erasmus Sydney (talk) 04:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You don't think that using primary, personal, and tabloid sources is a violation of BLP policy at all? --Pete (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Skyring and Pete: You've got me checking the principles, thank you. It asks for high-quality sources. Given that we're talking about a biography, it would seem okay to quote the subject from monographs the subject has published online. I'm guessing you think it's questionable that I've quoted Crikey? Honestly, I brought that in to bring balance, because they are very progressive and the subject is on the conservative side. Hansard would be about the most respected source you can have for a political figure, there probably isn't anything more reliable for quotations. What's your view? If you think it works better to use secondary sources, then I'm happy to make those changes. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Hansard is a primary source and cannot be used to support the commentary you've provided. Crikey is not a suitable source for BLP. Why not find a reliable source that says what you claim? I suggest that you go and read through our BLP policy, and if you cannot work within those instructions, don't waste your time by trying. --Pete (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Will review. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Skyring and Pete: The piece has now been reviewed, removing the primary source, reverting to secondary source, and moving to news sources of record which include The New York Times, The Guardian, ABC Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald as well as the local Fairfax paper of record for this MP. Thanks for your feedback and suggestions.

Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Further work needed in March 2020

Following the feedback of @Skyring and Pete: there needs to be further work on this document. Turns out the advice from 2019 on this Talk page, suggesting that we bring in Hansard as a source was seriously wrong, as this page needs to conform to the principles of writing "Biographies of Living Persons" - which precludes the use of primary sources. So, those interested in this page will need to comb through and use the reporting of news media of record, which are a secondary source, and use those for citations.

Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Please go and look at our WP:BLP policy. Hansard or other primary sources have legitimate uses, but we cannot use them to support anything but direct quotes. If we want to make a statement about the impact or meaning of a politician's words, we cannot use his words, and we cannot give our own opinions, we must find a reliable source that provides such a commentary, --Pete (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on CC-3 etc. Excellent sourcing. --Pete (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Skyring and Pete:. It's come out far better than the first round, due to your feedback. Point taken about use of Hansard as a source.

Erasmus Sydney (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Many of the shots up til now have been generic images from the ADF. These are being swapped out with images specific to the person, along with images that are from work as a politician, on which there is currently nothing. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Purging original research March/April 2020

As flagged by @Ivar the Boneful: the opening chunk of "Political Views" really constitutes original research. This is an invitation for those interested to either provide the original sources or to remove the opinion elements. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

...didn't you write that section? The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: Yes! I did! And when I wrote it, I must confess, it came from your helpful comments that, "Hastie isn't a typical backbencher, and most of this run-of-the-mill, could-be-in-any-backbencher's-article-interchangeably stuff isn't really relevant to Hastie." So I summarised that as "Hastie isn't easily placed" but I need to find another way in. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay @Ivar the Boneful: and @The Drover's Wife: I've done a demolish and rebuild now, citations through out. I'll take another look at it tomorrow. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This section has been rebuilt using material that is citation rich @Ivar the Boneful: @The Drover's Wife: Erasmus Sydney (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AH with family (KN).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AH and Gen Mattis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Insigne du Special Air Service Regiment (SASR).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Clean up on the personal life section

Hi @StAnselm: I think that tidy up works well. However, I would like to put back that phrase about "Whilst he is frequently ridiculed as being “fundamentalist”..." only because it's true (hence the citation). Also because it's an important principle of biographies of a living person to mention the criticisms along with the achievements. That make sense? Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It simply wasn't in the source provided. That was an opinion piece calling him a fundamentalist. It doesn't show that he is frequently called one. StAnselm (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point @StAnselm:. Let me get the citations and fix.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)08:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.104.199 (talk)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AB Vicki Treadell David Fawcett Dominic Raab Andrew Hastie Anthony Byrne 6 Feb 2020 (cropped).jpg
• Andrew Hastie and soldiers passing blast walls thought to be Camp Russell Tarin Kowt.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan, 2009-2010

I do not want to make a dramatic change to your information but I would like to point out that the link in the first sentence under the heading Afghanistan, 2009-2010 "Mentoring Task Force Two" does not take you to the Second Australian mentoring Task Force.

It takes you to information for Mentoring Task Force 1. That is incorrect. to ensure the page is correct the information you require for MTF-2 is on the "5th Battalion The Royal Australian Regiment Association" website. "A Short History of the Second Australian Mentoring Task Force" There is a photo of Colonel Darren Huxley DSC CO MTF - 2 at the top of the page and a group photo with Andrew Hastie at the bottom of the page. I include the text for you to enable one of the experienced editors to make that change.

On the 17th of May 2010, under the pseudonym Battle Group Tiger, personnel from 27 different units and headquarters across all three services of the Australian Defence Force concentrated in Darwin for operational service in Afghanistan. On the 5th of June the 5 RAR led Battle Group started its Mission Specific Training and between the 1st and 10th of September it completed a Mission Rehearsal Exercise as its final preparation for combat. In the space of four months the 5 RAR Battle Group completed three collective field activities; 19 individual courses or training activities; had up to three weeks of leave (if lucky), and prepared approximately 1200 personnel for potential service in the Middle East. It was a whirlwind of preparation, particularly for the administrative staff, with Glen Snijders (Chief Clerk) and Noel Allport (QM) drowning in paperwork and equipment respectively.

The 5 RAR Battle Group deployed on Operation Slipper as a Task Group of the Australian Middle East Joint Task Force 633 and was assigned under NATO operational control to Combined Team Uruzgan; a newly established coalition headquarters commanded by a U.S. Army 06 – Colonel Jim Crieghton. The Battle Group officially commenced its mission as the second Australian Mentoring Task Force (MTF-2) on the 21st of October 2010 – taking over in Uruzgan Province from the 6 RAR Battle Group.

MTF-2 operated in three major regions within Uruzgan: Combat Team Delta, initially under the command of MAJ Roy Henry and WO2 Dave Allen, then MAJ Marek Janiszewski and WO2 Andrew ‘Dusty’ Miller, patrolled the Dorafshan bowl, the Baluchi Valley and journeyed to all reaches of the Chora district. Combat Team Bravo, led by MAJ B.J. Pearce and WO2 Grant ‘Buck’ Rogers, then WO2 Stephen Logan, initially conducted operations in the Dorafshan bowl but then settled down to the good life in the Mirabad Valley. Combat Team Charlie, commanded by MAJ Dave French and WO2 Shane StClair, then WO2 Leslie Hapgood, roamed the Deh Rawud district and forayed into the lively Tangi and Tagaw Valley as often as they could.

Between the 21st of October 2010 and the 25th of June 2011, MTF-2 conducted 12 major operations in conjunction with its coalition and Afghan partners. It designed and assisted in the construction of five company sized patrol bases and provided oversight for the Afghan National Army’s construction of an additional two bases. It re-supplied up to nine Australian bases every month by ground convoy and almost everyday by air, and administered, equipped and commanded in excess of 1000 personnel at the height of operational activity. It mentored, indirectly, in-excess of two and a half thousand Afghan soldiers in everyday military tasks from the functioning of a Brigade Headquarters to the routine of a rifle section. Under the CS and CSS team leaders of majors Mick Spruce (7 RAR), Grant Chambers (1st Armd Regt) and Nick Buemer it advanced the 4th Afghan Brigade to new levels of capability and gave them significant confidence in their own operational independence. Finally, on the 25th of June 2011, the MTF-2 flag came down from its pole in Tarin Kot and the 2 RAR Battle Group took up the mantle of the third Australian Mentoring Task Force.

Three brave Australians gave their lives in support of the MTF-2 mission and five were severely wounded. A number of other courageous personnel either suffered minor wounds or endangered their own lives to save or assist others. Whilst the sheer volume of individual actions prohibits a full account of our tale here, all personnel displayed courage, commitment and loyalty befitting an Australian unit at war. FactsvFiction (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@FactsvFiction:This is immensely helpful. I can see one change that will need to happen is the creation of a separate page on MTF2.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: You've got significant expertise with Australian military history. Would you be interested in helping me build a separate article on MTF2? I'm slightly out of my depth.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the Political views section

The current state of this section is as follows:

Political views Hastie has been described as a "conservative". He is a member of the Atlantic Council, an international think tank politically connected to conservative politicians Mike Gallagher and Tom Tugendhat. Hastie collaborated with Australian Labor Party senator Kimberley Kitching to form the Parliamentary Friends of Democracy.

Hastie opposed same-sex marriage, and abstained from the 2017 parliamentary vote.

Hastie named Chau Chak Wing in parliament as a man who co-conspired to bribe a UN official, a man who took the media outlets to court for defamation as they had published the accusations.

Hastie has publicly opposed legislating the Paris target and the National Energy Guarantee.

Hastie was a strong supporter of the Turnbull Government's decision to prevent Huawei from providing 5G services in Australia.

In May 2018, Hastie named Chinese-Australian property developer Chau Chak Wing as a conspirator to bribe the president of the United Nations General Assembly, John Ashe.

Hastie supported the investment $3 million by the Environment Restoration Fund to protect Carnaby's black cockatoo, a native bird, endemic to Southwest Australia, currently listed as endangered due to loss of habitat. In a 2019 controversy about a proposed dredging of an estuary, Hastie expressed similar concerns about protecting natural heritage.

@Onetwothreeip: Let me understand. Do you feel this is as good as it can be? My view is that this feels a lot like a list. And not like prose. The Little Platoon (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I certainly think it can be improved, but I disagreed with the additions that were made, for reasons I provided in my edit summaries when I reverted those additions. What in particular do you think should be added to this, or otherwise to improve this? Please provide examples if possible so that we can clearly assess what you are proposing. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Okay we agree it could be better. Now I'm going to take a risk and tell you a bit more about me and what frustrates me about most articles in this space. We're a democracy. And most of us have no idea what our leaders and potential leaders are really about. We don't know what they believe, what their outlook is. I do it for people on both sides. Today I fixed up a some stuff that was missing on Penny Wong's article. But that one is a long way off. So, that's where I'm coming from. There are lots of news articles about that reveal what Hastie's real political beliefs are. I think they need to be set out here. And then the smaller positions need to be mentioned. So, for example, Hastie has a high view of the independence of our institutions, that they need to be free of interference. I want to see that set out. Then, let's have one of the moments that has come in to play mentioned, such as Hastie using Parliamentary privilege to talk about Chau Chak Wing. That's what I would like to see.The Little Platoon (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hastie has a high view of the independence of our institutions, that they need to be free of interference. Doesn't everyone have this view? This by itself is not at all notable. It's also not specific at all, and needs to be much better defined. Which institutions, and what interference? We obviously can't just say that Hastie cares about institutions being independent. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:No. Not everyone believes that. And his belief in the free operation of our institutions, like our universities and media outlets is something he spoke about quite early. Then, when it came to the crunch he created a national conversation about it by naming Chau Chak Wing. Why? because our institutions, notably U Syd and the SMH, were being pressured. I can't think of another parliamentarian who has done that. And in the halls of parliament, and amongst political commentators, and to the CCP, it's notable.

In short, what I would like to see in this section is two things - 1. Political principles 2. Policies and actionsThe Little Platoon (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Obviously all politicians are going to say that "institutions" should be free. Hastie naming property developer Chau Chak Wing in parliament was a minor news story, which we can describe here with a few sentences at most. You clearly have a very positive view of Hastie, but unless those conclusions are written in independent reliable sources, we cannot write that view into the article. It is not enough to infer from reliable sources, such as to say that because China is important, and that he is criticising China, that he is important and what he has done is important. Even though reliable sources may confirm that China is important he has criticised China, we require reliable sources to express that these particular actions are important if we are to write in the article that these actions are important. We also cannot state what his motives were, but we can state what he claims his motives are or what they are reported to be, according to reliable sources. Given the limited media coverage of backbenchers such as Hastie, Wikipedia's article about him would likewise be limited since we are unable to go further than those. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Onetwothreeip: do you have evidence that "all politicians say institutions should be free?" Don't worry! I'm sure you're joking. Though I can assure you that it's rare. In the meantime, let's recap on three ways in which we are now agreed. 1. There should be a political views section. 2. Noteworthy actions should be included. 3. If the subject claims a motivation for the action, that may be included. The Little Platoon (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It's something so obvious that it doesn't need to be said. I don't agree or disagree that there should be a political views section. A motivation claimed by the subject should only be included if a secondary reliable source describes that, and included in that context. A subject's claim of motivation is not inherently notable or warranting inclusion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid your assertion remains unsubstantiated. And I'm beginning to worry that while you're very willing to undo material, you seem not to be all that interested in looking at evidence. I have edited the articles on Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese and several other Labor figures. I can tell you the only Labor person who has made public statements on the importance of the freedom of institutions is Kimberley Kitching and that alongside Andrew Hastie. I am also going to wonder aloud whether one dissenting voice on this talk page is to be the final arbiter on what is notable and what is not. If it is mentioned in a news article from a reliable source, then clearly it's notable, or otherwise no one would have taken note. I had hoped that we might be able to have a productive conversation here @Onetwothreeip: but you seem be simply playing a dead bat. I imagine we will need to bring in some kind of rfc, which I would have thought to be a pity. Or are you open to trying to solve some of this?The Little Platoon (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to assert what should be in the article here. I too have edited articles about Labor politicians. I don't feel the need to go into arguing about there being only two politicians that have said something publicly about freedom. What exactly is it that you want to add into the article, that has been reverted? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: I'm wanting to have a decent section about political views. It should have 1) principles 2) actions. Of course, these will come from reliable sources. One example of this will be 1a) a high view of the independence and freedom of institutions (which, as it turns out, is actually pretty unusual, very few politicians talk about it, and you've provided no evidence to the contrary, so I think we can now accept that stands) and 2a) the subject's action in outing Chau Chak Wing as a threat to to the independence of an institution, in this case, the Sydney Morning Herald. So, that's one example of what I would like to write.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to add in though? The actual words you want to add. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This is no longer a collegial conversation, let alone productive. I provided my recommended section of writing about five hours ago. You deleted that, just as you deleted the section in the first place. I'm taking advice from a couple of administrators about next steps.The Little Platoon (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You haven't provided your proposal here on the talk page, which is necessary for participants to evaluate it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Opportunity to restore, edit and improve in September-October 2020

In the last 72 hours one editor has deleted about 100,000 bytes of information from this article. My first instinct was to challenge the deletions, however, since receiving some good counsel from Damien Linnane I have come to think we have an opportunity to prune the article. It was bloated.

I propose to use the wiki process WP:BRD BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. @Onetwothreeip: has made the bold deletions. It's up to the community now to decide if there are elements that should be reverted, and elements that should be discussed. @Klobfour:@TheBardofPeel:@StAnselm:@Keigh D:@MarioBayo:@Nick-D:@Redleigh3536:@Welsh Hamlet:@BorderTensions:@Rebellious Bird:@Veronique Cognac:@Controllingchaos:@Callinus:@Balastiere:@Amigao: You've edited and discussed this article before, so you may be interested. Please consider the following edits, as to whether they should be retained or reverted or discussed further.

1. Edits on foreign interference [[1] - this edit: (1) removed a citation about espionage laws (2) removed a quote from the subject about espionage (3) removed material about how these laws were seen by some in the United States and (4) a quote regarding the Alcoa strike. The edit seems to delete material on environmental concerns. (5) It looks like the subject's views on China and COVID-19 have been removed, as has everything to do with Five Eyes. (6) The material on foreign interference in universities has been re-written. The thing to consider is here is that @Onetwothreeip: has actually raised important principles here, that the article should "use secondary sources that are independent of the subject and the content, to validate both neutrality and notability." However, we should discuss whether it's okay to quote the individual from a primary source, in many wiki discussions I've been in, I've come to understand that it's okay to quote from a primary source (like Hansard), but it's not okay to use a primary source to make a point.

2. Edits on Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, electoral matters and views on sovereignty [[2]] - this edit (1) removed lots of material about I-PAC, which I think needed to happen, that organisation has its own page, so it doesn't need to be outlined here. (2) Had a good cut of electoral activities. (3) Big edit on views.

3. Edits on how subject is labelled and lots of stuff on views [[3]] - a lot of this edit removes the way supporters and critics of the subject see him, which I personally thought was important for balance, but maybe I'm wrong. Then it removes a very large amount about views on freedoms and democracy.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

4. Edits on military career [[4]] Okay, this is one for the community. It contains key events in the subject's second deployment which seem to have significantly affected later work and views, including some highly controversial matters.

5. Edits on early military career [[5]] - this is a very heavy reduction, however, it probably needed to be reduced. The question is by how much.

6. Edits on education and officer training [[6]] - again, some good fat reduction here, but has some good stuff been lost. The question is it notable and does it come from a reliable source?

7. Edit on early life and images - [[7]] The main cuts here were of images, but also of early biographical material. We need to ask if this is "encyclopaedic content" also, are the images relevant, or are they "mostly promotional"?

8. Edit on introduction [[8]] - large cut was made to the run up.

9. Edit on Inquiry [[9]]] - this is the removal of material about the Brereton Inquiry

10. Edit on proceedings of the PJCIS [[10]] - mostly this is about the work the committee is doing and the agencies they liaise with.

So! The bold cut has been made! Please share your thoughts here!The Little Platoon (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all I appreciate you starting a talk page discussion about this. It should be known that I have mostly reverted bold additions which were made in the last few months that seem to have not been assessed until now. It's nice of you to say where you agree with the changes I've made, but which if any of the content in particular that I've removed do you think should be restored to the article? I would be very interested to discuss that.

To discuss some of the points you have raised, quotes in Hansard are primary sources, and we generally should not rely on them. If these quotes are notable, they would be reported in secondary neutral media. There were certainly far too many quotes in the article, regardless of the source, and there probably still are too many. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: On review of edit item 6, I felt most of your changes were good. I have readmitted a small section of the original which gave some interesting context on how the subject was shaped by his early military deployment. I plan to further review item 6 and will keep you all informed. Hope that's OK, happy to discuss. Welsh Hamlet (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Welsh Hamlet. I have modified that paragraph to be more in line with Wikipedia's style, per my edit summary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So, this is going pretty well so far. Thanks @Onetwothreeip: and @Welsh Hamlet:

I've just made some minor grammatical edits to the first two paragraphs of the Early life section. @Onetwothreeip: I think you've done a good job of streamlining that part and I agree with the decision to delete the image of Hastie with his father. However, I think some of the other images that have been deleted should definitely be put back in. For example, it seems pretty standard to include a picture of a politician and their family, so I'd keep the one with his wife and kids. Also, the meeting with Anastasia Lin and the delegates from the Uygher community are another two photos that should be added back in, as they are relevant to Hastie's notable views on China. As for the rest of the photos that have been deleted, keen to hear what others have to say. Rebellious Bird (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you provide us with the images you would like to re-include? I don't think images with family are standard for politicians, as images are very far from standard at all on Australian politician biographies. I doubt an image of Hastie meeting with Uyghur people would be particularly relevant to him, and would mostly be promotional rather than informative. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll let @Rebellious Bird: respond to your specific question @Onetwothreeip:. But I want to express my support for all images that help the reader get a sense of the subject. So, the dimensions of the subject's life. In this case, combat experiences have strongly affected the later political position. The subject is, after all a political representative, so to understand him, we need to get a sense of what causes he is behind. But to take it up a level, I want wikipedia to be a great encyclopedia. In this case it should provide knowledge on the subject. Perhaps I'm being a bit 21st century, but for me, that must include visual information as well as written.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

We can't use images or anything else to get a better sense of the subject, as that's simply not neutral or encyclopaedic. Any images we use should only reinforce the information already in the article. An image can reinforce that the subject has military experience, but certainly should not suggest personal characteristics about the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Oh, I see things very differently. Flick open the latter editions of the Encyclopedia Brittanica - they have pages full of images[[11]]. I really enjoy encyclopedic texts from Dorling Kindersley and they are mostly images. I think the better articles on people have a good spread of images — the one on Hillary Clinton who was the secretary of State has about 35 images. For me, images are important to understanding a subject.The Little Platoon (talk) 20:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood what I said. The images should be encyclopaedic in nature like in Encyclopedia Brittanica, not to promote certain aspects of the subject. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:, right, okay, so we're agreed that images are valuable to the article. But now we must discern between those images that help us understand the subject, and those that might be promotional. Okay, that's the discussion. We'll probably need to narrow it down. Maybe I'll put forward a couple of images and we'll try to settle the principle? For me, I want to see images that explain the story of the subject, what shaped him, what he is actually about. What I am against is any kind of bloody glamour, studio stuff, posing. Interested to hear how you would frame the distinction between what's valuable and what is not. The Little Platoon (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

"Explaining the story" and "what shaped him" is very likely to be a synthesis and original research of sources, and likely to be promotional. We simply cannot suggest something like that in some way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Not quite following you @Onetwothreeip:. My view is when we look at, say, the article on Hillary Clinton it's really valuable to see that image of her reading a children's book in Maryland. Why? Because it helps us understand the subject, what she is about. What is your view?The Little Platoon (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how an image of Hillary Clinton reading a book to children would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. We should not be using images which give readers either a positive or negative perception of the subject, unless the image itself is notable. Hillary Clinton is not primarily a children's author, so that image would not be useful in that article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Can you point to a Wikipedia policy that says "We should not be using images which give readers either a positive or negative perception of the subject"? I've just read up on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images and found this: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting." The Hillary Clinton article is a featured article so I would assume that many editors more experienced than either of us would disagree with your assessment that that picture of her reading to children is not appropriate. Going off the guidelines, I would agree that the initial amount of images added by The Little Platoon may have reached the level of distracting from the article itself (though at the time there was a lot of text, which balanced them out), but removing images simply because they give a positive or negative view of the subject is, in my opinion, an impossible rule to implement due to its subjectivity and, more importantly, it is not part of Wikipedia's guidelines. Neutrality in how we describe the subject is important, yes, but let's take the example of the photo with Anastasia Lin: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anastasia_Lin_and_Andrew_Hastie_MP_in_Parliamentary_Offices_4_December_2018_(DB).jpg. I think this is highly relevant given that she is a notable critic of the CCP and Hastie is notable for his stance on China. And in terms of neutrality - one reader may dislike Lin and therefore view Hastie's association with her in the context of the photo as negative, while another reader who is a fan of her would see it as positive. It is not our job to decide what counts as a "positive" or "negative" photo. This is why I think it is appropriate to add at least this photo back in if not a number of others as well (the final number, in my opinion, should be decided on once the amount of text has been more or less finalised to avoid being distracting). Rebellious Bird (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If Anastasia Lin was a particularly notable person then it may be different, but she's not. The policy that you have quoted is very relevant, particularly about images being significant and relevant to the context of the topic. The key principle I would reference is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which applies to images within articles as well. Unlike the image of Hastie in Afghanistan in front of a military vehicle, demonstrating where he was and what he was doing, this image of Hastie with Anastasia Lin provides absolutely nothing about Hastie's political views or actions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I feel the force of your argument @Onetwothreeip: however I worry that your premise is wobbly. The image needs to be "significant and relevant in the topic's context". Anastasia Lin doesn't need to be famous (and isn't). She simply needs to be a person who is standing up for democracy in Hong Kong — and against the CCP, which, as you know is a key feature, perhaps the dominant feature, of the subject's public story of the last couple of years. It's one of three or four things that make him notable. The image is an "illustrative aid to understanding" to quote the policy. I would invite you to embrace the Inclusionism that I know you have stood up for elsewhere, that "that information should be liberally added and retained on Wikipedia." I thank you for pushing this article towards pithier content. I honestly do. But I ask that we allow information that genuinely illustrates and informs to stand.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to the above, @Onetwothreeip: going by your reasoning for keeping the image with the military vehicle, can you explain why you deleted these images: 1 2 3? You said the military vehicle image was "demonstrating where he was and what he was doing", implying that this is why it was kept - the three photos I've linked also show where he was and what he was doing (and are not posed photos), so what sets them apart from the military vehicle image? Rebellious Bird (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Little Platoon, the image of her with Hastie does not illustrate anything about Hastie. There is nothing about this image that illustrates Hastie's foreign policy positions, and there is no information to gain from the image other than the fact that Hastie sometimes stands next to people in photographs. Thank you for coming to this discussion in good faith. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Rebellious Bird, I certainly can. Each of these images have more than one reason to not be included, and each reason alone is adequate. Images one and three do not show his face at all. Images one and two do not demonstrate anything particular about the subject. Neither event is notable in their own right, and the subject does not attend political demonstrations or war memorial services enough for this to be demonstrated as a distinguishing feature for the subject. Image two is also in black and white, and image three is also redundant as there is already an image depicting similar military service. I would be very interested to see potential images which do not have these issues. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

just on this @Onetwothreeip: I don't think there's a policy requiring a face to be seen head on, is there? I wouldn't want made up policies to persist on this page. The Little Platoon (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Spent a bunch of time on looking at the best articles on people who are still active in politics. Most of the good ones are from the left side of politics, which is interesting in itself. Almost all are American. Have to say, frequently the strong ones feature a dozen or more articles, like the one on Senator Elizabeth Warren. Outside the US, the one I most enjoyed is actually on the President of Madagascar, Andry Rajoelina. So I am with @Rebellious Bird: in supporting the inclusion of photographs on this subject.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: the second topic I'd like to engage you with today is the political views section. This is now just a list, and wikipedia is not a list. Understanding the political outlook of someone requires more than a set of bullet points. To be encyclopedic we need some actual writing done. Again, I'm grateful for the push to trim, but we've lost the sense of what this person is all about. I will be doing some writing on this today. Must say I like the way the article on Mitt Romney will use terms like conservative and liberal, but actually explain them. Instead of just saying "Romney is a conservative" it will say who said he was what, and it actually uses his own words, which I believe is appropriate. The Little Platoon (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I assume you mean that those articles have a dozen or more images. I counted 13 images of the subject in the article about Elizabeth Warren, but this is purely irrelevant. If you have not yet, I would recommend you see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as this is one of the most cited Wikipedia guidelines on article talk pages. Any images added to this article should be good images in their own right and relevant to the content of the article. Unless you can be more specific, an encyclopaedia should not attempt to portray a particular sense of the subject. This is not a magazine profile, this is a biography. We should avoid labelling biography subjects with political terms, but instead describe how the subjects have been characterised by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I never wanted to know which particular politician you work for, if you did work for one. Originally all I saw you say about that was that you worked "in parliament", which is just a location. I have since seen you say that you work for several individual members of parliament. I was not and I am not asking which parties or politicians you work with, but I take it that you work as parliamentary staff. Is that correct? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Some material on the subject's military career in Afghanistan was recently deleted. Since the subject has had two different notable careers, one in the military and one in politics, it is necessary to include more detail on his military career. I reviewed the deleted section, re-edited it (including deleting some of the superfluous quotes that were included in the original) and resubmitted part of it. Welsh Hamlet (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

His military career is not a notable one by Wikipedia standards. If content has been removed, then per WP:BRD, we should discuss what content if any should be restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: ::@The Little Platoon: While it may be true that the subject's military career is not as notable as some other military careers listed on Wikipedia, it is significant and necessary to highlight in this case given the subject subsequently went on to become a prominent public figure serving in the Federal Parliament. It is beyond doubt that the subject's subsequent political career grew out of his experiences in the military. Had he not served in the military it is fair to assume he would not have gone on to serve in the Parliament. For that reason his military career is key to understanding him and ought to be listed here as it was prior to the cuts that were made.

@Onetwothreeip: We are debating it. Here. Right here. We have discussed, and agreed, that the article needed a good trimming. I have thanked you for beginning that withs some bold cuts. But, as per BRD, I am arguing that some of that material is valuable to understanding the subject and needs to go back in. Some of it. I have been working on that today, as mentioned above. Right now, you seem to be waiting if someone makes a contribution and then undoing it. The political views piece that was left last week is not up to snuff. To be encyclopedic we should have prose. I implore you to adopt a more collegial spirit here. The Little Platoon (talk) 05:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

When bold content is removed, per BRD the content can be restored after there has been consensus on the talk page. The inadequacies of whatever may remain in the article is no justification to restore bold content without consensus that has been removed. Please put forth on the talk page here what content you would like to add, whether that is restoring content or completely new content, and we can discuss that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: the advice is "if you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your contribution." As above, I outlined that we need a better set of content of than a list when it comes to political views, then I went and started working on prose. That's what I've done. I am very keen to make the process work. But you're not discussing. You're just undoing.The Little Platoon (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As you've shown, the advice is to advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page. Saying that the article needs better content is not advancing a potential contribution, and any agreement to that statement is not consensus for content that you have added. Please advance your proposed contribution here, so that it may be discussed by editors. "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:@The Little Platoon:@Rebellious Bird: I'm not sure why we're debating whether the content of this page is notable. See previous:

• “We should not be using images … of the subject, unless the image itself is notable"- Onetwothreeip
• "His military career is not a notable one by Wikipedia standards" - Onetwothreeip
• "Doesn't everyone have this view? This by itself is not at all notable" - Onetwothreeip
• “neither event is notable in their own right..." - Onetwothreeip
• “then clearly it's notable” - The Little Platoon
• "Hastie's notable views on China" - Rebellious Bird

According to Wikipedia’s notability guidelines "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article...These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni)." Wikipedia’s key content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research. Can also see: what wikipedia is not and biographies of living persons.”

As per Wikipedia’s recommendation to “try to read traditional paper encyclopedia articles (or good or featured articles on Wikipedia) to get the layout, style, tone, and other elements of encyclopedic content”, see Gough Whitlam’s page (a featured article) for an example of appropriate detail:

“His father was a federal public servant who later served as Commonwealth Crown Solicitor, and Whitlam senior's involvement in human rights issues was a powerful influence on his son.”

While this information isn’t essential, it is definitely important for describing and explaining Whitlam. We see this again on Kevin Rudd’s page:

"Rudd boarded at Marist College Ashgrove in Brisbane, although these years were not happy due to the indignity of poverty and reliance on charity; he was known to be a 'charity case' due to his father's sudden death. He has since described the school as 'tough, harsh, unforgiving, institutional Catholicism of the old school'.”

Additionally, on Julia Gillard’s page (a good article) in the section on her political positions, we see a fair amount of detail explaining her pro-choice stance:

“Gillard expressed support for legal abortion in 2005, saying that 'Women without money would be left without that choice or in the hands of backyard abortion providers' and that she understood 'the various moral positions' regarding abortions. Pertaining to unplanned pregnancies and counselling, Gillard is of the view that women ought to be counselled by someone of their choice – as opposed to only trained professionals referred to by their general practitioners. In August 2012, Gillard reiterated her position in support of abortion, stating that 'Women must have the right to healthcare and women must have the right to choose'."

Furthermore, on Gough Whitlam’s page there are 14 images of him, with his family, other politicians or meeting people on trips. Kevin Rudd’s page has 15 images of just him or meeting with others. As well as Julia Gillard’s page with 11 images of herself and/or meeting with others. So, this statement from onetwothreeip “images are very far from standard at all on Australian politician biographies”, seems to make no sense at all. Veronique Cognac (talk)

I don't see anybody debating whether the content in the article is notable or not. The examples you have chosen are all former Australian prime ministers, and that reflects a very small proportion of Australian politicians. Choices made on other articles a matter for those articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on draft "Political views" section for the Andrew Hastie (politician) article

Discussion above has mostly been about how to set out the political views of the subject at hand, who is an Australian federal Member of Parliament. There is consensus that political views should be outlined. What follows is an iteration of setting out the person's articulated principles then seeing they have become particular views or announcements. This seems to help avoid the problem of the section become a list of disconnected ideas. To be clear the below is what I'm proposing for the "Political views" section of the article on the subject. I welcome your suggestions, especially those who have contributed above @Onetwothreeip:@Controllingchaos:@Veronique Cognac:@Welsh Hamlet:@Damien Linnane:@BorderTensions: The Little Platoon (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hastie has been described as a "conservative." He is a member of the Atlantic Council, an international think tank formed to assert democratic values, and politically connected to conservative politicians Mike Gallagher and Tom Tugendhat. His personal convictions about democracy, according to one ABC report, emanate from his Christian belief that "everyone is equal and has dignity" and this plays into his views on all policies, such as individual freedoms, the need for strong institutions and sovereignty.

Individual freedom is a principle Hastie asserted in his first speech, particularly freedom of "thought, worship, speech, association and choice." Since then he has defended the right of religious people "to express their convictions."[[12]] In the same-sex marriage debate, Hastie campaigned for "No" and abstaining from the 2017 parliamentary vote, asserting freedom of conscience.

Strong institutions, for Hastie, are vital to democracy, coming from our freedom to associate; in that way they are "the fullest expression of self-government." Institutions that he is concerned about include Universities and the press.[[13]] In May 2018, Hastie named Chau Chak Wing as funding bribery, a move that was seen as dramatic and inflammatory</ref> but which he saw as "his duty"[[14]] dramatic. ABC analyst noted that Chau Chak Wing was, at that time, in court proceedings against Nine media for defamation, and that Hastie acted "because he has become sincerely worried about the influence of China on Australian institutions and politics." [[15]] Hastie supported the investment $3 million by the Environment Restoration Fund to protect Carnaby's black cockatoo, a native bird, endemic to Southwest Australia, currently listed as endangered due to loss of habitat. In a 2019 controversy about a proposed dredging of an estuary, Hastie expressed similar concerns about protecting natural heritage.

Australian sovereignty was Hastie's central concern in the column that caused a "firestorm" in Sino-Australian relations in August 2018. Concern that Australia maintains it sovereignty in the face of a rising power in the region led him to form the Parliamentary Friends of Democracy with Labor senator Kimberley Kitching. Hastie has publicly opposed Malcolm Turbull's push to legislate the Paris Agreement emissions target and the National Energy Guarantee as it undermines Australia's economic sovereignty. Conversely, Hastie was a strong supporter of the Turnbull Government's decision to prevent Huawei from providing 5G services in Australia and encouraged Britain to do the same.

Unsurprisingly, Hastie's views have been heavily influenced by his military experience, as he explained in an interview with ex-SAS commanders Ben Pronk and Tim Curtis:

I take my time in Afghanistan, especially in my first deployment, particularly my time with MRTF2 with the 1RAR battle group, as being very formative for me, doing Nation Building and realising the limitations of government to change people and their culture. We built bridges, we built a bazaar where we expected people to trade, we built schools and hospitals, we built all sorts of things, but fundamentally, we didn’t change the way the Afghan people lived. Respecting people’s sovereignty, and people’s freedom to live as they choose is something that I learned over there.

This experience seems to have made Hastie sceptical of Neoliberalism, saying, "I am now far more circumspect about the ability of military power to change people and societies, and far more aware of how resilient culture can be."

•••

@Onetwothreeip: @The Little Platoon: Thank you for making this request for review. I think it is vital we reach a proper consensus on this. The subject, after all, is currently serving in the Australian Federal Parliament as the political representative of his constituents. It seems to me, therefore, that of all the information we should know about him, his political views should be paramount. The debate seems to be manifold. One point of contention is over whether it is legitimate to refer to the subject's personal description of their political views when representing them in a wiki article. Surely their own description of what they believe politically is more reliable than any third party description of what they believe? Surely this isn't open to debate? If a wiki article is forbidden from stating the personal political views of a politician, what use is it?

The other major disagreement seems to be whether the current sparse list of the subject's stated political views recently created by @Onetwothreeip: is preferable to the detailed and encyclopaedic prose description posted by @The Little Platoon: above. Again, I am incredulous as to the controversy here!? Surely a detailed, nuanced and properly balanced description with quotes and references and context is superior to a curt list lacking any detail or context? There are plenty of Australian politicians listed on Wikipedia with detailed, referenced and contextual sections on their political views. Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd are two quick examples, but there are many more.

I would be interested to hear the views of other editors, because there doesn't appear to be a legitimate debate here. @The Little Platoon: is advocating a detailed and encyclopaedic description of the subject's political views, including what he says his views are, and @Onetwothreeip: is apparently trying to argue that this is wrong. That Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain a politicians political views as they see them, and that a caricatured list lacking context is preferable to a detailed prose description. Am I missing something? Welsh Hamlet (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Welsh Hamlet: Generally wikipedia prefers secondary sources - things journalists have said about someone's view - but I get what you mean.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely their own description of what they believe politically is more reliable than any third party description of what they believe? Of course not. They are obviously biased in their self-descriptions.

The other major disagreement seems to be whether the current sparse list of the subject's stated political views recently created by @Onetwothreeip: is preferable to the detailed and encyclopaedic prose description posted by @The Little Platoon: above. This is a lie. I have never created such a list. Furthermore, this is not a discussion between two options, this is a discussion about whether or not to endorse this proposal. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:Personally really keen to stick to the etiquette, so would really like us all to back away from language like "This is a lie." I've shared the above because I'd like it improved, that's what I would like. I'm not proposing the above like it's the final language. I need to do the footnotes properly for one thing. But I am suggesting a good way to set out political views is to start with the principles, then go to actions and outlooks and announcements.The Little Platoon (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You should propose what you actually want to be included in the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: sorry if unclear, the above material, beginning with "Hastie has been..." and ending with "...something that I learned over there." is what I'm actually proposing that should be included in the article as the Political Views.The Little Platoon (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: @The Little Platoon: I take your point The Little Platoon that generally wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but I would contend that personal political views (or personal views of any kind) must be an exception to that general principle. Nobody is more qualified to define an individual's personal or political views than the individual in question. As to your point Onetwothreeip, that "They are obviously biased in their self-descriptions." Firstly, in what sense is that obvious? Secondly, it's irrelevant whether they are biased or not when it comes to expressing their personal views. By definition, only the individual holding a given view is qualified to express it. What any third party says in relation to an individual's personal views is irrelevant.

Furthermore, I certainly have not lied about anything. I reviewed the edit history over this controversy and what happened is that The Little Platoon created a section on political views similar to the draft above, which you Onetwothreeip subsequently deleted and replaced with the sparse list that currently appears on the page. Is that correct or have I missed something?

All that being said, as you correctly observe Onetwothreeip, this discussion is to determine whether or not to endorse the draft above. I endorse it. I can see no reason why it shouldn't stand. It is clearly a significant improvement on the current list. Welsh Hamlet (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Onetwothreeip: in that "this is a discussion about whether or not to endorse this proposal" of the political views by @The Little Platoon:. Firstly, thank you for seeking to improve wikipedia's articles @Onetwothreeip:, there was good reason to edit the original Hastie page. I see that @The Little Platoon: has proposed the new political views section in the talk page just above. I support this proposal as I believe this has reasonably taken on board the original comments from @Onetwothreeip:. Although to maintain objectivity i would recommend removing "Unsurprisingly" and "This experience seems to have made".Veronique Cognac (talk)

The sentence beginning with "Unsurprisingly" is a clear violation of MOS:OPED, though this seems to be reflective of a wider problem. To me the proposed wording reads more like a university essay than an encyclopedia. "This experience seems to have made Hastie sceptical of Neoliberalism" - correct me if I'm wrong but this appears to be original research/synthesis of the editor, who has drawn their own conclusions from the quote. "Individual freedom is a principle Hastie asserted in his first speech, particularly freedom of 'thought, worship, speech, association and choice.' - This doesn't appear to be cited above. Even if it was cited, you need to make sure it is the opinion of a journalist who is writing about his first speech that one of Hastie's principles is individual freedom (and perhaps worded as the opinion of said journalist rather than as straight fact), rather than just the conclusion drawn from an editor who read the speech. I see many similar issues throughout the proposed wording, but I only have time for one more, and that's the very next sentence. "Since then he has defended the right of religious people 'to express their convictions'. This is painfully vague. What does that mean? In what manner has he defended them? The source quotes Hastie complaining about the fact someone had a complaint lodged against them for circulating a pamphlet which, in his words, "made the case for classical Christian marriage". Or in other words, a pamphlet against gay marriage. I think it's a stretch to paint him as a person defending rights of religious people without giving context. I'd argue the sentence should instead read "Hastie believes it is unacceptable for opponents of gay marriage to be taken to anti-discrimination tribunals." Damien Linnane (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Strong, clear feedback, as ever @Damien Linnane:. Your feedback then is to

1. Remove any trace of original research, such as "seems to have made Hastie"
2. Review to include citations
3. Be more specific, such as your suggestion, ""Hastie believes it is unacceptable for opponents of gay marriage to be taken to anti-discrimination tribunals."

The Little Platoon (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

My response probably came across as a little too blunt; I was in a rush to reply in order to get to an appointment. But definitely yes to the first two points; I'm confident all experienced editors would agree with me. In retrospect the third point doesn't have to be that specific. But 'defending the right to express religious convictions' is vague and could be taken several ways (By comparison, the subsequent sentence making Hastie's position on gay marriage clear is very well-written.) I'm reminded of the saying 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' Based on that source, Hastie's idea of religious freedom appears to be thinking religious people should be able to speak out against gay rights. My definition of religious freedom would be quite different. Point being I think some context should be given. How about we restructure the paragraph: "In the same-sex marriage debate, Hastie campaigned for "No" and abstaining from the 2017 parliamentary vote. Hastie has also defended anti-gay marriage activists, saying he "believes in the rights of all persons of faith "to express their convictions in their daily lives without fear of discrimination, either from government or in the workplace"? Damien Linnane (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. Thank you @Damien Linnane:.

Thank you for your helpful input, @Damien Linnane:. I agree, there is a bit too much editorialising going on in the section proposed by @The Little Platoon: but I think this is more of a wording issue than an issue with the amount of content. Also, I can see a few grammatical mistakes that will need fixing e.g. "Hastie campaigned for "No" and abstaining from the 2017 parliamentary vote" should be "abstained", but I will do a grammar edit once the content and wording on the page has mostly stabilised. As for the conversation on notability above, @Veronique Cognac: is absolutely right. @Onetwothreeip: @The Little Platoon: in discussing whether the content was notable, we have been misapplying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which only apply to actual or potential article topics. This means in determining whether particular content should be included, in future we need to make sure we are using the content guidelines and not using notability or lack thereof as a reason for inclusion or exclusion of content, as per Wikipedia policy. Rebellious Bird (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rebellious Bird: Right. Am embarrassed about the grammar stuff up. And, now both you @Onetwothreeip: — and @Damien Linnane: have pointed it out, the needless editorial bits. I think this is why so many articles on similar subjects often become more like a list. The challenge is to have introductory phrases, or joining phrases, so we have proper prose, but those joining phrases don't say any more than the source material or the quote. You sound like you might know some of the wiki guidelines better than me. I actually hadn't noticed the nuance about note-ability before; that it's about the actual subject being note-able, that's the important thing. I stand illuminated, as well as corrected.The Little Platoon (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

While we're checking in on BLP policies, I came across a great nugget here on the topic of primary sources, such as speeches, monographs and autobiographies:[[16]] — turns out featured article BLPs such as Barack Obama use material that feature the subject's own statements, as do articles on less famous people, such as Colin Grainger an English football player, which featured in "Did you know? and is rated as a GA. I still think secondary sources are the go for the most part, but, if useful, primary ones can be used at points. The Little Platoon (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have come to a conclusion. And, as often happens in these discussions, it's forced me to re-check some policies. So, I've learnt a few things, which include:

1. Primary sources (like Hansard) can't be relied on to support a line of argument or commentary.
2. However, primary sources can be used to support a direct quote.
3. It is okay to use quotes, and many featured and good articles on BLPs use quotes from the person here and there.
4. For a person to warrant an article on wikipedia at all, they must pass the notability test, which, to quote from the policy: "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." However the notability guidelines do not limit the content of an article or list. (I must confess I has thought that images and sentences had, themselves to pass the notability test, but I have been quite wrong in this respect.) All an image or a sentence must do is to be informative with regards the person in the article subject which, after all, is the purpose of Wikipedia.
5. There's no firm rule about images per se. The overall rule is to be encyclopedic. This is not a picture book. The articles need to be informative and pictures can help with that. Sometimes - such as on the Barack Obama page — that can mean a shot of that person playing basketball, or sitting with family, or taking the oath of office.
6. When it comes to political views (which has been argued for strongly above by some) it seems that while secondary sources are preferred, there's no policy as to no using a quote from the primary source where a person says what their principles are. Though I can see there are individual editors who would prefer that didn't happen.
7. We never have phrases suggesting original research, like "seems to have made Hastie"
8. When describing political actions, the more specific the better.

From the views above, I have re-written the political views section, which is immediately below:

Closing gaps in the Military Service section (April 2020)

To date, there has only been material on missions that have received mentions in government inquiries. However, since investigative work by the ABC journalist Chris Masters (writer) has been published ("No Front Line") we know of several operations the subject has been involved in. I propose to use that material to fill the lacuna. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This task, rebuilding the Military Service section, so the holes in the service story are filled in, has now been completed. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

After the Brereton Report came out yesterday, it looks relevant to mention how close or how distant Hastie was to individuals and events mentioned there. Early days, but needs to be done as Hastie has such a prominent role. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:10B3:31F9:53C2:DAE0 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It certainly is not our role to include links to others etc. That would be original research, not to mention very close to smear-by-association. If Hastie is prosecuted or named in the Brereton Report or linked in the following investigations, then it would be relevant. The only relevant item to date may be the recommendation to revoke the MUC his unit was awarded - provided it is clear that it wasn't a revocation specifically aimed at Hastie. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Andrew Hastie Orignal (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Please visit the page if you like, however the objection appears to be a false one, that there is FB data in the exif file, however, what counts is that the original copyright owner, @TheBardofPeel: had gone through the process of putting the image under Creative Commons Licence, which happened a number of years ago.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Following the request for comment on 30 September, here is the October 7, 2020 draft of the political views section

Hastie has been described as a "conservative." He is a member of the Atlantic Council, an international think tank formed to assert democratic values, and politically connected to conservative politicians Mike Gallagher and Tom Tugendhat. His personal convictions about democracy, according to one ABC report, grow out of his Christian belief that "everyone is equal and has dignity", which informs his views on various policies, such as individual freedoms, the need for strong institutions and sovereignty.

Hastie asserted in his first speech that for him individual freedom is a guiding principle, particularly freedom of "thought, worship, speech, association and choice." Hastie has argued for the right of religious people "to express their convictions" and believes it is unacceptable for opponents of same-sex marriage to be taken to anti-discrimination tribunals. In the same-sex marriage debate, Hastie campaigned for "No" and abstained from the 2017 parliamentary vote, asserting freedom of conscience.

Hastie believes that "freely formed associations are the basis of Australian society and are the fullest expression of self-government." He is particularly concerned about the freedom of institutions such as universities and the press. In May 2018, Hastie identified political donor Chau Chak Wing as an unindicted co-conspirator in an FBI bribery case involving former president of the UN general assembly, John Ashe, a move that was seen as dramatic and inflammatory, but which Hastie saw as "his duty." An ABC analyst noted that Chau Chak Wing was, at that time, in court proceedings against Nine media for defamation, and that Hastie acted "because he has become sincerely worried about the influence of China on Australian institutions and politics." Arguing in favour of "the sovereignty of local communities to make decisions about how they conserve and develop their environment", Hastie opposed the dredging of The Point Grey Marina but supported the investment of $3 million by the Environment Restoration Fund to protect Carnaby's black cockatoo, a native bird endemic to Southwest Australia and currently listed as endangered due to loss of habitat.

Australian sovereignty was Hastie's central concern in a column that caused a "firestorm" in Sino-Australian relations in August 2018. His concerns regarding Australia maintaining its sovereignty in the face of China's rising power in the region led him to form the Parliamentary Friends of Democracy with Labor senator Kimberley Kitching. Hastie publicly opposed Malcolm Turnbull's push to legislate the Paris Agreement emissions target and the National Energy Guarantee, as he believed it would undermine Australia's economic sovereignty. However, Hastie was a strong supporter of the Turnbull Government's decision to prevent Huawei from providing 5G services in Australia and he urged the UK to do the same.

Hastie has explained that his views have been influenced by his military experience, as mentioned in an interview with ex-SAS commanders Ben Pronk and Tim Curtis:

I take my time in Afghanistan, especially in my first deployment, particularly my time with MRTF2 with the 1RAR battle group, as being very formative for me, doing nation-building and realising the limitations of government to change people and their culture. We built bridges, we built a bazaar where we expected people to trade, we built schools and hospitals, we built all sorts of things, but fundamentally, we didn’t change the way the Afghan people lived. Respecting people’s sovereignty, and people’s freedom to live as they choose is something that I learned over there.

This experience made Hastie sceptical of neoliberalism, saying, "I am now far more circumspect about the ability of military power to change people and societies, and far more aware of how resilient culture can be."

If anyone has further comments to make about this fresh draft, please share them below:

I have made a few edits here and there, mostly grammatical changes or rewording to clarify things bit more. This section is looking really good and I think it's ready to publish. Thanks for your contribution on this, @The Little Platoon:. Rebellious Bird (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rebellious Bird: It's been a bit of a painful process but, as usual, and as @Damien Linnane: has pointed out before - after some of his own cuts! - the writing comes out better after a damn good prune. Though I must say, having looked at the main article again, the cutback has definitely gone some valuable stuff out. I don't think there's anything about his career in the actual SAS. Anway, that's for another discussion.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rebellious Bird: @Damien Linnane: @The Little Platoon: I have also made some small mostly cosmetic and grammatical changes that help tighten it a little. All in all this section is now vastly improved and just about ready to go in my opinion. Well done all! Welsh Hamlet (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks much better. I haven't checked sources to make sure they back up things adequately, but based on prose alone I see no major issues. Damien Linnane (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Just adding to what seems to be an already established consensus: the draft seems clear, objective and encyclopedic. Thank you @The Little Platoon: for you diligence and proactive refinement of the article based on the constructive feedback of many. I have also checked of few of the sources and they seem to adequately back up the claims - so it all looks good to me. Controllingchaos (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Seeing this discussion I have made this edit.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Improving the military service section

Some time ago, one editor removed a large amount of content about events during this subject's military service, which can be seen here. It means there is nothing about the death of the two Afghan boys in which he was involved, nor any of the material published by the ABC and the SMH from Chris Masters about operations this person lead. I propose to bring that content in. What do others think? @Playlet: @Balastiere: @Welsh Hamlet: @Quebec99: @Catiline52: @Ivar the Boneful: @StAnselm: Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Why? You are discussing an event where he was not involved and they found no fault. Unless you can show that there was a serious case for Hastie to answer I think this is a relatively irrelevant incident Playlet (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Massively undue weight, especially for a politician who was not notable prior to joining Parliament. Maybe we could have a few sentences more than what is currently in the article, but not much more. StAnselm (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@StAnselm:@Playlet: thanks for your feedback. Since the Brereton Report there's been a lot of speculative material circulating about what the subject did and didn't do during service. So, I'm interested in setting out the handful of things that are known; as reported, by Chris Masters (writer) and others, including matters of which the subject has been cleared. I take your recommendation to be extremely brief.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixing the duplicate ref names

@Quebec99: has placed this article in the "Fix duplicate ref names" category. It sounds like the problem is there's a lot of references have the same extended citation, where, really, all but one reference should have a shortened format, like which is what the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pages_with_duplicate_reference_names suggests. So, I propose to make changes along those lines. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not intentionally place any pages in any categories, but I find pages to work on in some of those categories. Quebec99 (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your service @Quebec99:! Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You are quite welcomed @Erasmus Sydney:. Quebec99 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)