Talk:John Barilaro

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Barilaro. 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/20110218033048/http://nsw.nationals.org.au/our-team/my-electorate/monaro.html to http://nsw.nationals.org.au/our-team/my-electorate/monaro.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Rename Barrilaro's nickname to 'Bruz', and write that his favorite video game is super mario. 2001:8003:9112:AD00:ECA1:1B0C:51A4:CCD (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• declined - the very reason for the protectionFleet Lists (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request RE: FriendlyJordies?

Why does the last half of this article focus so much on FriendlyJordies?

It's very unfocused and seems to be told more from Jordies side than the actual subject of the article? Why do we need to know that Jordies was wearing an "oriental bathrobe" in a wikipedia article about a politician? We don't need a list of 4 video titles to back up the claim that Jordies has talked about koalas before.

If anything, the controversy surrounding his undeclared properties should be placed around the 2016 section when it actually occurred? See: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/deputy-premier-john-barilaro-under-fire-over-undeclared-airbnb-business-20161124-gswqdu.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.2.103 (talk • contribs)

Well, today's highlights are the fact that FJ's producer got arrested. It should not be a surprise why it's so FJ focused. Also, please sign your comments. SHB2000 (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Producer's arrest

Pinging Damien Linnane, though I welcome other editor input. I appreciate you not adding the producer's name back again. That's my main interest here. I don't mind mention of the arrest controversy, but I would push for us to keep it as short as possible. The section on friendlyjordies in general should probably be shortened. As is, readers are getting the message that these recent events are as important to cover as about half of Barilaro's entire political career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs) 02:52, June 18, 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree the producer's name should not be mentioned. I wasn't the one who added it. I also don't disagree the coverage (and previous incidents) should be shortened. It was probably too long, I just added some clarification as it seemed that despite its already substantial length, key points were being left out. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've since shortened the whole section on friendlyjordies. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! One point, I don't think we can say the police statement "is not consistent with video footage", as it doesn't seem supported by the Guardian. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

They don't explicitly say that, though they very much seem to be implying it. Having worked as a journalist myself in the past, I know how hesitate publications are to explicitly say anything controversial. Their paragraph reads "Vision of the incident shows Langker attempting to return legal documents to Barilaro while filming him. Police allege Langker followed the deputy premier for 200 metres and repeatedly asked him why he was suing Friendlyjordies, rounding his car as he drove away." To me, as a journalist, that's their way of saying it's inconsistent while still covering themselves legally (the video footage clearly shows the producer does not round the car, so anyone can verify the police statement is not consistent with the video themselves). I have two suggestions. We could reword/expand similar to what The Guardian have done themselves, to give what appears in the video and contrast that with what the police are saying (the only reason I didn't do this originally was as I was trying to be as succinct as possible per our previous discussion). But I have a better idea. How would you feel about adding the friendlyjordies video [1] as a supporting source? He most definitely both states the inconsistency and provides hard evidence to support his claim. We can cite him as he is notable, I was just hoping to avoid it as while his evidence and fact-checking seem watertight, he's not exactly an impartial party; secondary coverage is always preferred. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we, much like the journalists, should hesitate to say it explicitly. If there's a clear discrepancy between video and statement, we can expect to see reliable sources report on it more concretely soon. I don't think we should link the video. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it instead to show the conflicting versions, as per the source, and also attributed a comment to Shank's notable lawyer. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should name the producer. His name is all over the media anyway, and calling him "the producer" repetitively sounds silly. Why do it?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

His name is all over the media (and I just noticed I let one instance of it slip through into the article, which I've just fixed for consistency). I'm not really sure what the precedent is here, I just don't feel any need to name him myself if others oppose it, as it doesn't really affect the narrative. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a part within the FriendlyJordies section that states that the "Video footage of the incident shows the producer attempting to return legal documents to Barilaro regarding the defamation suit". This is factually incorrect. The video evidence provided on the FriendlyJordies YouTube channel of the event only displays the producer moving towards Barilaro saying "Hey John. John. John. Oi John. Um... I've got something for you. John I've got a lawsuit. You're suing my boss. John. John. John. John." This is a direct verbatim from the original video which can be found here [2] As shown in the video and the provided verbatim there is no mention of "returning" any lawsuit related documentation and is very much distinct to what is currently described. Anything other than the provided verbatim and referenced video is complete conjecture added in by Shanks in an attempt to provide his own biased take on the events that occurred which have not yet been proven by the video he has used as evidence for his claim. For the sake of unbiased reading this should be removed. Ladvirex (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, you didn't actually read the sources did you? You could have saved yourself the time of posting anything on this talk page if you had. That statement isn't based on the video. The video isn't cited. The statement is based on the investigative journalism from the article at Guardian Australia here [3]. Direct quote: "Vision of the incident shows Langker attempting to return legal documents to Barilaro while filming him". Your opinions on the friendlyjordies video are irrelevant as we're not citing the video for the statement you have a problem with, we're citing the journalist. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

And the bias comes flowing out along with all the snark. Oh dear... It seems like you could accurately quote what the article says rather than attempting to reword it into a manner that displays one party in a positive light and then using an accusatory tone for the other party. The fact that you don't want to reference the video at all which is, right now, the only evidence of this event taking place is very disappointing. I'll give you some stuff to think about so you can make a positive change rather than attacking people trying to help keep this article accurate such as myself.

I never gave my opinions on the FriendlyJordies video and only ever pointed out exactly what is shown in the video and provided a verbatim. Then I requested that we remove any bias by removing peoples opinions from this article. If you don't want to remove it and replace it with/add in reference to the exact footage and what is displayed that's fine but you should at the very least you should alter what is currently there to make it more accurate to the tone of the article.

A way of fixing the article may be to add more details into the claim the police made. The current wiki article states that "Police allege the man followed the deputy premier, repeatedly asking him why he was suing Friendlyjordies." While in the article from The Guardian it states that "Police allege Langker approached the deputy premier near his car. Barilaro had just been at a state funeral for the rugby league legend Bob Fulton... Police allege Langker followed the deputy premier for 200 metres and repeatedly asked him why he was suing Friendlyjordies, rounding his car as he drove away." Adding additional context such as how the article is displayed changes the tone of what is being said in it's entirety. I don't believe that is any reason to not add in a sentence or so more detail such as the article and feel like this is a fair compromise to show an accurate reporting of the articles facts and claims.

You can ignore any typos at this point as I quickly wrote this up. I'm done with this article for the time being (until new developments occur most likely) because I didn't expect that trying to make a positive change would lead to attacks against my intelligence by a third party who is so emotionally invested in this situation. Ladvirex (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You clearly gave your opinions on the video. My opinion on the verbatim audio you transcribed above is that he is trying to return the lawsuit. "I've got something for you. John I've got a lawsuit". Seems pretty clear to me, and the journalist from The Guardian has reached the same obvious conclusion. You also conveniently ignore the fact that police allege the man rounded the vehicle, when the video shows no such behaviour. But I digress, as neither my opinion on the video nor yours can be cited. Journalists reporting on the video, however, can be cited. It's extremely disturbing that you seem to have no problem with wanting to replace the summary of an experienced journalist from a well-established news outlet with your own personal spin.

Please read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which is a category you currently fall under. Over a period of almost three months, you've made a grand total of 10 edits to Wikipedia. Nine of these edits are related to the Coalition (Australia) and their members. If you are interested in improving Wikipedia, rather than just advancing an agenda, edit articles outside this niche area.

Please read WP:PRIMARY. The video is a primary source. Primary sources should not be used if non-primary independent sources (such as the article by The Guardian - also see WP:NEWSORG) exist. The fact that you want to reference the video, when independent sources exist, either shows intentional bias or just a poor understanding of how Wikipedia is written. Having a poor understanding of Wikipedia is normal for new editors. Displaying the level of arrogance and bias you have, is not. Accordingly, I'm done talking to you. As a closing note, may I suggest you try editing Conservapedia instead of Wikipedia? Assuming you aren't already that is. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia don't let inconvenient things like 'facts' and 'independent journalism' get in the way from advancing their agenda. I think you'd fit in really well there. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm back because it's just too funny to see you lie. You literally see the kid walk around the car 270 degrees. It may not be a full circle but the intention of the statement and saying "rounded" is well understood enough. Now it's also funny that you're refusing to put that in. Your giving your own opinion saying "it's not circling" even though it is in the very article you are citing. You're biased and refusing to add the full context. You agree with part of the transcript so you add the part of the article that agrees with you. But you disagree with the journos mention of rounding and so you don't add that. Also claiming I'm conservative while stating your negative opinion against Barilaro on this situation and refusing to add in anything that isn't negative against him is laughable.

I don't know why you spend all the time in the world on Wikipedia when you can't even read. I don't want a spin on the video at all. I want literally no spin, just a direct description without any bias.

The only thing I could have stated that was my opinion is the sentence "Anything other than the provided verbatim and referenced video is complete conjecture added in by Shanks in an attempt to provide his own biased take on the events that occurred which have not yet been proven by the video he has used as evidence for his claim." which is just pointing out very clear facts that Shanks adds in additional context which has been put into this wiki page that is not shown in the video. But again, we've already realised that you only add in parts to the wiki that agree with your take on things.

Also I made my account because I saw a figure that I remembered when looking was incorrect on the liberal party page when I was viewing the labour and liberal parties of Australia Wikipedia pages and decided to create an account so I could amend it because I didn't and still barely have a clue how to use this website I made like 9 edits for the one edit I was trying to do. I'm sorry I don't spend all my time posting on Wikipedia such as yourself with over 51,000 edits. I have now, while browsing Wikipedia, found another mistake (this entire thread right now) and am trying to amend it. Not single issue or pushing an agenda. I don't even see how changing the figures to an up to date figure for the membership of the liberal party is pushing an agenda but your wording literally proves that you dislike the liberal party so it makes sense you are trying to paint John Barilaro in a bad light now. Luckily, I'm not terminally online and spend most of my time editing grammar though.

You should've thought twice before mentioning your own opinion up because you really just showed the bias you have in selecting what parts of the article you choose to publish on Wikipedia and have given sufficient evidence of your bias. Ladvirex (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've discovered Ladvirex has referred this matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, though without notifying me. As previously stated, I will not reply to him here regarding this matter as clearly, nothing constructive is coming from the conversation. All existing editors of this page are welcome to add comments at the dispute resolution. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

DRN Volunteer Comment I have closed the case. I am advising both of you to change your approach to this disagreement. Ladvirex- I would request a 3rd opinion or an RFC if I were you. There is Original research going on in this article that needs fixing. There needs to be no more personal attacks from either of you so be respectful. If you decide not to engage further Damien- I see no reason why Ladvirex shouldn't make the appropriate changes since you are choosing not to be involved. If it needs to be made by an autoconfirmed editor- I'm happy to make the changes for them. Or you can discuss it in a respectful mature way for a bit and try to find a compromise. You cannot force your opinion to stay by choosing not to discuss it- thats not how WP works Or you can take this to the ANI and make an actual, supported, case that they are breaking policies. Be careful that you haven't broken any yourself before you do that. I have not read all the sources. I know nothing about this article. I'd rather you two work it out or get a 3o from someone more familiar. THe behavior on this talk page is unacceptable and rude and needs to stop. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: I'm listening to you. In summary, this problem arose as Ladvirex said a quote in the article, which is backed up by solid referencing, was factually inaccurate, and wanted to make a change based on (what I believe is his personal interpretation of - though he disagrees) a primary YouTube source, which conflicts with what the independent reliable coverage says. As you pointed out at the dispute resolution "Youtube is a questionable source at best see- WP:NOYT". I found this request biased, checked their edit history and saw they only log in to edit articles on one niche subject (which this article falls into), then chose to be condescending, which is regrettable. My ability to AGF only goes so far; I distinctly remember choosing to be condescending after seeing they only ever edit in one area. If you had of read all the sources, which you acknowledge you haven't (fair enough as that's not your responsibility), I am sure you would see the problem with Ladvirex's original request. I would very much appreciate and welcome the opinion of another confirmed user, who has read all the sources. I was refusing to continue talking to Ladvirex as I believed he was ignoring the point, and when he raised the bar from condescension to personal attacks, things went downhill quickly and I didn't see the point in an argument just between the two of us.

And yes, another editor did point out I had overstepped into some original research previously, though I quickly agreed to their requested change and implemented it as I saw the merit in their argument. I still do not see the merit in Ladvirex's argument. We should not be replacing independent journalism with primary YouTube sources. I believe the article currently summarises the incident well, and there have been previous concerns on this talk page raised by others that expanding the section was taking it into the real of WP:UNDUE. We currently have one sentence on the police accusations, and one sentence from a journalist that contradicts this assertion. Ladvirex wants to add more coverage of the police accusations. If we added more coverage of the police accusations, I'd want to balance that out by adding more sourced coverage of contradictions. But I'd prefer to just leave it as is. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current text. A personal interpretation of the video is irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Jack. @Nightenbelle: can you have another look at the article and please clarify where you think there is OR in it? I agree with Jack that there is no problem with the current wording. I'd strongly welcome you fixing any OR if you found some, or at least pointing it out so we can discuss it. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I'm pinging you as you created this thread (which has, of course, gone off on a different tangent haha). But since you're the only editor in this thread who hasn't commented on Ladvirex's proposed change, may I ask for your opinion on it? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making judgements on content- just on sourcing and behavior. You've got other users commenting- great. Ya'll can form a consensus- peachy. I'm not going to argue on either side. Just keep talking and keep being respectful- thats all I'm asking. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the OR comment was regarding behaviour, and not the wording in the article. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not caught up on the dispute, and probably won't be for a while. I encourage anyone proposing new language to cite it carefully to reliable sources. This is all news, and we may want to leave it out entirely until in-depth reporting can happen. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ladvirex: As you can read at the dispute resolution, Nightenbelle's conclusion was that both of us were "breaking multiple policies" and needed to resolve this more constructively. We've both made our arguments clear, and we both clearly oppose each-other. Rather than continue to argue and criticise each-other, I suggest the best way to resolve this constructively is to wait for further comments from other editors to see if a new consensus emerges. We currently have a third opinion siding with my argument, though more opinions are welcome, providing both of us adhere to Wikipedia:Canvassing by not contacting uninvolved editors who we assume will agree with us. I'm happy for you to take this to WP:RFC as per Nightenbelle's suggestion. It's my understanding you can no longer take this to 3rd opinion though, as we already have a third opinion from Jack. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that this is an article on John Barilaro. It is not the place for a lengthy examination of the route that Langker took before and after his confrontation with Barilaro. At this stage, we don't know what the evidence of CCTVs and witnesses will be. We don't know what significance this will have at his trial (if it ever happens). All we need here is a brief summary of the incident, and I'd be in favour of removing text, rather than adding it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree the section should not be expanded further at present. I do think the current length is about right to cover what has been reported on so far. There was plenty more I could have added, but chose not to. For example, there were other notable figures that criticised the arrest, but I thought the three I added was a good sample (Rudd has since been added by someone else, but is clearly the most notable of the group). I wouldn't be opposed to shortening the critics to just Crowdery and Rudd now though if you wanted to cut it back a little. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Regarding your most recent edit [4], I don't disagree with removing the producer's name as knowing his name adds nothing of value to the paragraph, but I don't see how updating the paragraph to say he pled not guilty is too much detail. I didn't add the information, but I think the five words 'The producer pled not guilty' could summarise the current status of the incident very well. I'd object to adding any further information from that, such as statements regarding why he's entering that plea due to both WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, and anyway I think that's already sufficiently covered. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I object to Langker's name being removed, as stated previously. His name is all over the media, and calling him "the producer" looks silly. I also don't see the problem with saying he pleaded not guilty.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added the guilty plea back, integrating it into the article earlier in a way that only adds four words to the paragraph. I'm neutral on the producer's name though; happy to hear more opinions. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I continue to oppose including his name, but I don't feel it's a no-brainer and am happy to discuss it. I feel I've explained my position above and in edit summaries, but I'd add WP:BLPNAME to the policy sections I find are relevant. I don't think adding the producers name will improve this article in any way, and I especially don't want the reason for including it to be avoiding silliness.

Regarding the plea, I bow to consensus. Moving forward, I don't think we should include routine press coverage of the case unless there's new info about Barilaro specifically. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. WP:BLPNAME refers to a situation when When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated. Langker's name has been widely disseminated. I agree we need the information here to be brief. However, to be clear, both court cases are "about Barilaro specifically". But this is just one incident in his life and shouldn't overwhelm this article. I think if editors are keen to write up these cases they should be directed to start new articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

And in terms of "silliness", stylistic concerns are extremely valid. We should avoid phrasing that is obscure, awkward, strange, circumlocutious, convoluted, unnatural, stilted, or downright silly. I think this wording falls into all those categories. It also could be taken to imply we don't know his name or that we aren't allowed to say it. The term "producer" also conjures up the image of a Hollywood type. Langker is a 21-year-old music student who helps Shanks with his YouTube videos. It is OK to note that is his job description, but I think harping on about him being a "producer" could be misleading to readers not familiar with the case.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2021

Hey guys, not sure how to properly edit Wikipedia, just noticed there was contention in the talk section about how to describe the inconsistencies between the police report and the filmed event. Have you considered sitting the ABC media watch show on it, I belive they point out the inconsistency there 49.178.35.216 (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The contention was only coming from a sole single purpose account who had no support for their demands, so it's not an ongoing issue. What's difficult is finding a source that explicitly notes the difference between the video and the police statement of facts, other than friendlyjordies himself. I don't think the Media Watch video does that. The irony is clear when the presenter shows the video of the the producer attempting to return the lawsuit, then states "Not only [was this action] judged to be stalking and intimidation", though he never explicitly states there's a difference between the police version of events and what actually happened. That's the issue. Nevertheless, the Media Watch source does confirm that the video shows the producer attempting to return the lawsuit, so I've added it as an additional inline citation for that statement. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Relations with Mussolini

Hi, a lot of internet articles say that John Barilaro is related to Benito Mussolini. One of the first autocompletes in Google when you start typing in "is John Barilaro..." is "... related to Mussolini". Is there any truth to that or is it just Google up to its dirty tricks to smear a great local member and a caring politician? To my mind the two men are not at all alike: they both went to Catholic schools but Barilaro was not expelled, Barilaro also has a farm like Mussolini but he doesn't keep chickens, and Barilaro is not into punctual railways like Benito was. --49.255.185.235 (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

caring...right. 202.61.122.221 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be no evidence that they are related.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Trade commissioner

It was alleged that he had created the publicly-funded position while he was Deputy Premier.

Who has alleged that?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in adding that content, though I've just read the sources provided for the first time. While clearly raising many serious questions regarding the role, neither supports that assertion. It would probably take a paragraph to give an adequate summary of this complicated situation. Feel free to be bold and have a go. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I also removed the "Controversies" section which is against Wikipedia policy — see WP:CSECTION — and also is potentially confusing in terms of the chronology of his life. I don't think my changes should be reverted without discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I see your point on sections - my browser wasn't able to load that page earlier. I think that, along those lines, the trade commissioner section should be moved to a subsection within Political Career. It presents as too short to warrant its own heading. My reference to 'several unexplained edits' were the slew of edits made without comment after your initial edit.

Though I will point out that "It was alleged that..." is virtually the same as "Questions were raised...". I'll expand on that subsection to avoid this confusion. RGBLight (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Now it seems he's resigned from the position.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there should be a page called something like "John Barilaro Trade Commissioner Scandal", that redirects to this page? Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Or even an entirely new page covering Barilaro plus all the other elements of this scandal that have come out (Ayres resigning, Perrotet's questionable offering of certain things to another MP to get them to quit etc). Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wait till the current section gets big enough to split off.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

CV References

"... Barilaro was the second ranked candidate prior to discussions with his CV references."

1. Should be 'discussion with with his CV referees'?
2. This point not mentioned in the cited sources.

Peaceandlonglife (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC) The ranking list was shown in parliamentary documents, so there's a source out there somewhere I don't know where though. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Post-political career

I'm noting this down because there's no point in getting into a edit war about this, but this may later be important. There's no clear dividing line between his political career and the abortive attempt to appoint him to the trade commissioner role, which was after all a political appointment and has generated a political kerfuffle. It might better to say "post-parliamentary", rather than "post-political". Also, regarding the incident with the camera man, based on what I've read, I have no idea why the camera man was there, and what it was all about. As I said, this can all be sorted out later, but I've decided to make a comment when the issues are fresh in my mind. Jack Upland (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Point one. To be technical the STIC jobs aren't a "political appointment", which is a ministerial direct appointment by Premier and Cabinet. These jobs went through the 'regular' employment process of the NSW Government public service which is meant to be non-political and appointments are meant to be free of political interference. Point two, the Manly incident, Barilaro had yet to give evidence by that point. Thursday 21st July the inquiry made public evidence that Barilaro asked to get Amy Brown to request making the commissioner role a ministerial appointment. Media interest was very high, Ayres was embattled (the week after the Manly incident he was forced out as a minister), and Barilaro had gone underground. On the Saturday 23rd July afternoon he was spotted out in public and media arrived, waiting 4 hours for him to leave. It started with Channel 7 trying to interview him, they got shoved away by his mates, then the freelance cameraman was involved in the 'altercation' with Barilaro himself. So that's where the link between the inquiry and the incident is and where it fits in the timeline. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Bushfire recovery grants

Please add to the political career section that Barilaro “played a key role in project selection”, intervened in the recovery grants process for the 2019-2020 bushfires, and Labor-held seats did not receive any funding.

thank you. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where specifically should this be added? As a new section? GiovanniSidwell (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add this new information to the political career section. An appropriate location might be after “ Following the 2019 state election, Barilaro was sworn in as the Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade in the second Berejiklian ministry, with effect from 2 April 2019.”

Following the 2019 state election, Barilaro was sworn in as the Minister for Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade in the second Berejiklian ministry, with effect from 2 April 2019. Barilaro “played a key role in project selection”[ref given above] for the recovery grants process for the 2019-2020 bushfires, in which Labor-held seats did not receive any funding.[ref given above]

 Done with some rewording. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 159.196.100.171 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023

This report is missing information about how the Barilaros ended up with a clubhouse after it went under because of their unscrupulous activities. Yilmaz36578 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 22:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)