Talk:Gina Rinehart/Archives/2013

Hayward

"a surname considered more compatible with Hancock" (paraphrased from Leser, p150) What does that mean anyway? How is Milton less compatible with Hancock than Hayward? –Moondyne 13:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Date of divorce

The current article says that Rinehart's first marriage ended in divorce in 2001; previous versions have said 1981. The current version is nonsensical, as later the article says her second husband died many years before they were supposedly married, and that Rinehart was 29 at her second marriage. Risker (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Divorced in 1981 per a couple of sources. I've tried to improve the citations but grateful for a sanity check. Moondyne (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent court action

Another editor wants to include this week's details in the lede, while dropping the Rose Porteous action which carried on for over ten years. I disagree, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information" [my emphasis]. The reasons for the Supreme Court writ aren't even known at this stage—when they are, it might be worthy of mention there, but I think some water has to pass under the bridge to beat the long-term notability of the earlier actions. Moondyne (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done. I agree entirely. Inclusion of Rinehart's legal battle with her step-mother was notable and is deserving of inclusion in the lead paragraph because of its cost, its length, the media column inches, the book(s) written, and the implications of foul play both in suspected murder, and the suspected bribing of witnesses - all cleared by the coronial inquiry. Porteous' public remonstrations also made the case memorable to most Australians. As to the current case, it may well be notable over time, but the simple lodging of a commercial writ in the NSW Supreme Court does not make it worthy of inclusion in the lead. If the writ was, say, placing a halt on Hancock Prospecting trading and having implications on the company's profit, a significant impact on Rinehart's wealth, etc, then may be including in the lead may be ok. But at this stage, we simply don't know and it's better to err on the side of caution and include in the body of the article. Well done on the layout of the table, too. I knew it wasn't quite right when I left it last. Jherschel (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Addition of the court order to the headline

After a threat by John in 2004 to take legal action against his mother over the trust and his role in the family business, Mrs Rinehart and her children entered into a deed which requires that all family disputes have to be settled in confidence. The existence of the agreement, signed in April 2007, was widely speculated at the time, but had not been confirmed until september 13.

In a judgment handed down in the NSW Supreme Court on september 14, Justice Paul Brereton said that no small part of the family's immense wealth resided in the trust. The dispute centres on the governance of the trust. The children, led by Mrs Rinehart's third daughter, Hope Rinehart Welker, took urgent legal action on September 5 seeking relief. But the nature of the relief is subject to a suppression order.

It seems to me that even if we wait we might not be able to see the outcome of the case given the supression order. It can be considered to be noteworthy given the previous history of legal dramas, the judge's admission of the size of the trust and the confirmation of the existence of the privacy agreement in 2004. I would welcome your comments given this explanation. Forgive me if you though i was previously editwarring, this is my first talk page entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.12.176 (talk) 06:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Last things first: Thnks for joining in the discussion - Wikipedia works much better as a collegiate effort when all points of view are explained rather than bickering. I just now read that latest news report, and given yr 2nd point in particular "the judge's admission of the size of the trust" as well as the likelihood that further detail is now unlikely, I swayed towards agreeing with you that the sparse info we have is leadworthy. Its interesting that Justice Brereton also said the case "is and always was a family dispute, about interests in and governance of a family trust. ... No questions of public significance or importance appear to arise." :) Moondyne (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of talk, User:180.216.12.176 :-) You will find us really friendly in here. I agree with you now, and with Moondyne. The matter is worthy of inclusion in the intro in light of the order made by Brereton J. I have now added a citation to his order and removed duplications of the references, as well as some of the wording from his order. Thanks for your contributions in this article and on this talk page. I hope that you create an account and see you contribute to other articles in Wikipedia. Thanks again. Jherschel (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Climate change denial

An editor keeps on sticking in skeptic instead of denial when a newspaper headline says denial and the article specifically says that one of the two brought out was a denier. That the newspaper called the other a skeptic doesn't change the force of the headline or the other persons description. Dmcq (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much weight on a newspaper headline. Perhaps you might be able to find an additional reference beyond a newspaper headline that describes their position on climate change. Rangasyd (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Well a quick check turned up a number including talking about her funding Monckton and at the same time saying Monckton is a climate change denier, e.g. [1]. The interesting business though is I just saw Gina Reinhart has appointed Ian Plimer to the board of Roy Hill Holdings and Queensland Coal Investments on January 25[ http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/local-business/rinehart-appoints-plimer-to-board-roles/story-e6frg2s3-1226259721980]. He was already on her Australians for Northern Development and Economic Vision lobby group. Ian Plimer is yet another person who has been called a denier or a 'controversial sceptic' in mainstream press, Gina Rinehart does seem to go in for this sort of stuff in a big way.

Anyway someone want to do something about Ian Plimer?, I see his article also doesn't cover this latest bit. I've moved off doing anything much about climate change and only had this article on my watchlist by accident. Just the idea that Monckton is a genuine sceptic in any ordinary meaning of the term just strikes me as ludicrous. Dmcq (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The references used are hardly newspaper headlines. One is an opinion piece published on an opinion website written by journalist who writes writes only on environmental and sustainability issues and clearly has a strong POV. The other is a transcript of a Radio National program, which says nothing about Monckton being a denier except in the reader commentary. There are other mainstream newspapers who refer to Monckton as a sceptic rather than as a denier, e.g. [2]. As I said in the edit summary, 'denier' seems a bit strong in the context of this biography. Maybe we could get better sources (i.e. news rather than opinion written by those fully engaged in the climate change debate) or we could just refer to Monckton by name and let the reader decide.--Landscape goats (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'll just replace what's there with the one above. Saying somebody is a sceptic doesn't stop them being deniers. He's only a sceptic by mangling the meaning of the word, he brough a court case against an academic and tried to get them thrown out of their job because they had the temerity to inspect his arguments and ask for his sources. Dmcq (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the Crickey and the Independent Australia references that have been added are not relevant in the context of what is currently written. The Crikey reference refers to links between Rinehart and Monckton but doesn’t say that she sponsored his Australia trip. Similarly, the independentaustralia.net reference says nothing about Rinehart sponsoring Monckton, and would appear unsuitable in this context anyway as it is a contentious opinion piece on a site devoted to political activism.

Text of the Monthly article notwithstanding, labelling Monckton a denier in the context of this BLP seems inappropriately contentious. As I pointed out before, other mainstream media outlets refer to M as a sceptic; given this fact, a more conservative approach would seem prudent. As for Plimer, it could be argued that his appointment to boards of mining companies hardly counts as a political act. He is, after all, an experienced mining geologist who has served on boards of many other mining companies during his career. There is already text regarding ANDEV – I suggest therefore that mention of Plimer can be removed. --Landscape goats (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to judge the sources and the source put up top that Plimer was mainly known as a climate sceptic, I don't see why you are so keen to change what the newspapers say. I'll raise an RfC about this as we don't seem to be able to see eye to eye about what the sources say. Dmcq (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One doesn't need either site - the SMH clearly states "THE mining mogul Gina Rinehart has sponsored a speech by the British climate sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton at a West Australian university" while The Australian says something similar. It appears from the context that she sponsored his appearance at Notre Dame, no less at a lecture in honour of her dead father which she possibly revived just to host Monckton, but is silent on whether she had anything to do with his appearance in Australia more broadly - the suggestion is that she did not. Graham Readfearn, a freelance journalist writing for the ABC, says she "offered a donation to cover [his] costs", while other articles suggest another organisation, AAME, paid for most of it. Only very recent stories (literally within the past week) that I can find suggest she bankrolled the whole thing. So the consensus of journalistic opinion appears to be that she funded the Perth leg of his 2011 tour, and donated or contributed to the costs of the remainder but not in a primary capacity. Orderinchaos 07:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sum total of wealth may be inaccurate

GR's wealth figure seems to be the total value of the companies she controls. It is not a given that she owns it all, because the old man had bequeathed some shares to his four grandchildchildren. We do not know what shares, and we do not need to know, really. What we do know is that some shares in that foundation belong to the four adult children, so GR does NOT own 100 %. She CONTROLS that assett, just like a CEO, but owns some of it. We should not parrot figures that can not be factual and accurate. This comment is about figures, no opinion piece on the events surrounding this Dynasty/Dallas saga. 144.136.192.14 (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the caution, but the bottom line is we should be relying on reliable sources as to what the estimates are. If we think the source is reliable, then we quote the number. We don't do original research to look behind the sources. Might be useful to have a check of what those sources say about how they arrive at the figures. May also wish to use words like "her wealth is estimated to be...". hamiltonstone (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out the extreme disparity between the listed figures from BRW and Forbes and that the way the table displays them is very misleading. The AUD has been on, or near (above and below), parity with the USD for quite a while now. $AU29b is, for all intents and purposes, $US29b and nowehere near $US18b. Both figures should be quoted in the same currency for clarity and a note that the figures are estimates (and what those estimates are based on). Right now, that table seems to imply that the AUD is worth almost half what the USD is and that she really isn't "all that rich".220.233.71.222 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Having been the contributor that added the tables for the Top 10 wealthiest Australians, I can comment a little further about the two measures.

1. Firstly, the indices are released at different times. Forbes early in the calendar year, BRW in late May. It would appear (but I am not certain) that both Forbes and BRW each draw a line at a point in time and then values the known assets held at that point in time. The timing of that date for each is different and is not known.
2. Secondly, there is the disparity of the reporting currency. Forbes reports in US$; BRW in A$. Given that it is typical that people on these lists have assets, not just in Australia, but elsewhere, there is always a myriad of conversions at the point of time of valuing assets. And then there is movement in currencies from the time of valuation until publication; and then again following publication. For example, BRW may draw the line in June (2011), take eleven months to collate data from shareholdings, publish the following May (2012), and you look at it today (November 2012)...and that is not even taking taking into consideration movements in commodity prices!!
3. Thirdly, the tables are not there for comparison between each other, but they are there to reflect movement in value over time, whether it be upwards or downwards, in each index.

Whilst I acknowledge the caution, none of us (unless you're a member of the Rinehart family/sanctum), have seen a copy of the Trust Deed that reportedly provides for the family of the late Lang Hancock. What is known is that Gina Rinehart is the sole trustee of the trust; and hence controls the assets. I agree with hamiltonstone that it is not up to us to do original research. We should rely on solid sources; and both Forbes and BRW have the runs on the board with this kind of reporting. Rangasyd (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Did she study at university?

According to the 2010 "newsmaker" article in SMH, "she tried economics at Sydney University". It does not say she graduated, and the impression os of a brief period of study. But unless someone has a reliable source saying she did not study at the university, i suggest the information be left in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Keep it.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)