Talk:Andrew Hastie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Good articleAndrew Hastie has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 28, 2026Peer reviewReviewed
June 25, 2026Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Close
More information Associated task forces:, Additional information: ...
Close

Inclusion of comments from James Laurenceson

Hi, I am seeking approval to make two edits. The first is to link the "Enoch Powell in a controversial 1968 speech" to it's relevant page 'Rivers of Blood speech'. The second, which I've had some back and forth with TarnishedPath on includes additional commentary on the Morrison government's support of Wang Liqiang, which I believe is relevant given Hastie's role as Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.

I believe this meets the BLP policies as it is from a verifiable source and is non-libelous as it serves as an informed opinion from an expert in the field - James Laurenceson, the Deputy Director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney and does significantly contribute to the page again given Hasties role in that government and the context of the support given by him. Additionally, the recently amended update should not constitute WP:SYNTH as the comment itself is a direct quote from the article without synthesis of sources.

KSanders1890 talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The prior speech isn't labelled "Rivers of Blood" in the sourcing which is about Hastie. Refer to Wikipedia:Peer review/Andrew Hastie/archive1 where @Mike Christie specifically called that out as an issue. I attempted to find sourcing which both talked about Hastie's speech and explicitly linked it by name to the prior "Rivers of Blood" speech and I couldn't find any.
On the second issue of adding a quote from Laurenceson, it's irrelevant if he's an expert or not. What is relevant is that the source material does not mention Hastie. Therefore by adding his quote you're doing A + B = C, i.e, WP:SYNTH.
We summarise what secondary sources state about subjects, nothing more. If a source doesn't explicitly link Hastie to a speech by the name of "Rivers of Blood", we don't either. If experts make statements about things and don't mention our subject, we don't either. We don't make those linkages as it goes against our policies on no original research. TarnishedPathtalk 12:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Given that edit is a link to Powell's speech, and the phrase "strangers in their own country" is quoted in the source, I think the only additional source we would need would be something that makes it clear that that quote comes from this speech. This should suffice; publication details are here though that's not free access. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. Pangalau (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andrew Hastie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) 05:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pangalau (talk · contribs) 16:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)


Hello. I'll be reviewing this article with the help of the peer review conducted earlier this year.

@Pangalau: thankyou in advance for your time reviewing the article. TarnishedPathtalk 23:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is my initial assessment, see my comments below.

More information Rate, Attribute ...
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Good. There does not seem to be any problem with respect to issues regarding criteria 1a. It flows well and the tone is encyclopedic and unbiased. These are improvements rather than problems.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Good. The article follows the guidelines for lead sections as per MOS, follows the structure of a typical Wikipedia article. The article does not contain any "words to watch" with the exception of several political terms correctly attributed, and is not subject to the fiction-related guidelines of MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Good. It is worth mentioning that the article shows the proper citation approach since there are inline citations for every factual statement, as well as a separate section of references at its proper section which uses only reliable publications in a consistent format.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Good
2c. it contains no original research. Good
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Good
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Good
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Good
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Good
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Good
7. Overall assessment.
Close
  • Comments:
    • @TarnishedPath: Excellent work! There was not much for me to comment on, as the issues or potential issues raised are already addressed in the peer review. I also want to thank everyone who took the time to complete the peer review, as it made my review significantly easier. Cheers.
@Pangalau:, I've replaced the infobox image to what it was previously. A bit of a shame because the image under discussion on Commons is a good quality photo. I suspect the Department of Defence holds the copyright though and their website indicates that they don't release their material under free licenses. TarnishedPathtalk 11:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath: Well done! I'm happy to pass this article. Pangalau (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A-Class review

« Return to A-Class review list

Andrew Hastie

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): TarnishedPath (talk)

Andrew Hastie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. The article has recently been brought to WP:GA status by myself. Hastie is a veteran of the war in Afghanistan where he was a captain in Australia's SASR. He is currently a promenant politician in Australia and is a potential future leader of the Australian Liberal Party. Any and all comments welcome! Thanks TarnishedPathtalk 00:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Disclaimer: Although we were both at ADFA at the same time, I don't recall ever meeting him.

  • What is OpenAustralia?
I've added a note about what it is. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "Shadow Minister for Defence Industry & Defence Personnel" Change the ampersand to "and"
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "Royal Military College, Duntroon in 2006" Comma after "Duntroon"
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, his wife's maiden name is generally more useful
It's not in any of the sources used to reference her relationship with Andrew and I've not been able to find it by performing any searches. TarnishedPathtalk 09:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Early life and education
  • We need to repeat his full name and birth date here; otherwise it is unreferenced.
  • Link "primary school", as this will not be understood by an international readership
  • "Hastie's maternal grandfather Reginald, a war veteran" Do we know of which war"
  • "His father Peter" Commas around "Peter"
  • "church pastor" Is there another kind? And link pastor
  • Link Presbyterian church
  • Define UNSW on first use (although it is fairly obvious)
  • Link Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918.
  • Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the third paragraph.
Done all. With the maternal grandfather bit. I've removed mention of Reginald (by name) or of them being a war veteran as it is not supported by the source. This article has had issues with connected contributors in the past and I suspect that bit was original research. I have however, added detail about his paternal grandfather being a Flight Lieutenant who served in the Pacific War. With UNSW, I've replaced it with the full name and have not defined the acronym as it is only used once in the whole article. TarnishedPathtalk 11:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Scratch what I wrote about UNSW. It is used more than once. I've defined it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:12, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Military career
  • I would say "posted to" instead of "posted with"; the latter would imply a temporary assignment
  • Not seeing the relevance of fn 11. Doesn't seem to cover the text.
Done the above two. No idea what fn 11 was about. TarnishedPathtalk 11:20, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Political career
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 11:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Ps, I linked the Liberal Party of Australia in the lead in case you're wondering. TarnishedPathtalk 11:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Do we know when he joined the party?
2013. See Special:Diff/1365789192 where I move a sentence from the military career section and add a bit more. Being up front here, one of the sources used is Herald Sun, which I have removed from numerous articles as I consider it to be not reliable; however, this particular Herald Sun article is an interview with Hastie and so I think it passes WP:ABOUTSELF. TarnishedPathtalk 12:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "media criticism about his family's religious beliefs" Can you elaborate on whet these were? And are we talking about his father or himself?
I've updated the wording as the source doesn't state that he faced any criticism. You're correct, that it's about his father and the media were questioning whether Hastie was a creationist like his father. TarnishedPathtalk 10:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "the government of Malcolm Turnbull who had" Comma after "Turnbull"
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "This moved the seat from "marginal" to "fairly safe" according to the Australian Electoral Commission." Actually, the reference says it moved from "safe" to "fairly safe".
Updated. TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • " Scott Morrison was subsequently elected leader of the Liberal Party, thus becoming Prime Minister of Australia as leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives." Reference required here.
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Use "he" instead of "Hastie" after first use in the first paragraph of "Opposition (2022–present)"
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Done and added a bit of context. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "conservative MP Angus Taylor" Do we really need " conservative MP"? It is a false title.
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "this time under Taylor" Seems redundant to me.
Removed. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "the position of Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, a position which had become available" I would say, "had been re-created"
Done. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Views

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Hawkeye7, thankyou for time undertaking this review. I'll try and address some of your points tonight. TarnishedPathtalk 23:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
I've just addressed all of these points except his religious views. I'll address that later. There is some sourcing on it. Ps, Same-sex marriage in Australia was already linked on the words "same-sex marriage" in the marriage equality section. Also the linking of Labor was addressed above, so I've removed the link there. TarnishedPathtalk 12:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Ps, I'll probably leave the adding content on religious views to the end once I've addressed all of the above. Remind me if I forget to come back to it. TarnishedPathtalk 09:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I've just moved a sentence that was near the top of the views section into a subsection about Christianity and marriage equality (there's obviously a bit of cross-over), taking the material that was already in a subsection on marriage equality. I've also added a bit more. @Hawkeye7, please have a look and let me know if you'd like any further changes. Ps, I think I've also addressed all of the above, so please have a look when you have time and let me know what other suggestions you may have. TarnishedPathtalk 08:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
The outlook of politicians like Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison were defined by their religious beliefs. Yet here we have someone ostensibly defined by deep faith but apparently having no preferred protestant denomination. (In the Army, though, it is normal for separate church services to be held for protestants and Catholics.) I have linked a couple of religious terms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I'll have a look and see what the sourcing says about their denomination later after work. I suspect that it is either Prysbertarian of Baptist, but I'll have a look. TarnishedPathtalk 22:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I think he declared himself to be Anglican. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, you were very much correct. He has said that he's an Anglican. I've added that and removed original research which stated that he's been a part of various revivalist churches after being an atheist. TarnishedPathtalk 10:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, were there any further changes you thought should be made to the article? TarnishedPathtalk 06:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Nick-D

I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • At the outset, I'd note that this article has long been infected by people who appear to have an undisclosed conflict of interest of some kind with Hastie or his political party. I'm not sure that this has been sufficiently exorcised from the article, though the work to improve it has been impressive.
  • "the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) of the University of New South Wales (UNSW)" - I'm not sure that this is the correct formulation. ADFA is its own thing, with the UNSW running the academic side and awarding degrees.
Updated wording to state that he studied through the University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy. TarnishedPathtalk 11:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
  • "with a bachelor's degree in history, politics, and philosophy" - this doesn't seem correct. His APH biography says that he has a bachelor of arts (hons).
Sources state that he did a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in History and Philosophy. Updated as such. Ps, I also found some stuff I couldn't verify, particularly around dates. I've removed it. TarnishedPathtalk 11:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
  • "who has served as the deputy leader of the Opposition" - this isn't correct. Jane Hume is the Deputy Leader - Hastie has the position of "Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives".
Fixed. TarnishedPathtalk 13:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  • What's the relevance of Hastie's grandad being in the RAAF? The great majority of men in Australia served in the military in some form during the war.
I've added some context about Hastie stating that his grandad's actions during the war being an influence on his values. TarnishedPathtalk 09:50, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
  • "his final thesis examined Charles Bean's Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918" - can more detail be provided on the topic here?
  • "Hastie participated in 45 parliamentary debates in 2019—above the parliamentary average—with most contributions relating to national security matters" - I can't see this in the source
  • The para starting with 'Hastie opposed dredging' reads like puffery. This is routine types of stuff for MPs.
  • There is no detail on what Hastie did as the Assistant Minister for Defence.
  • "Hastie was one of the few Liberals in a metropolitan seat to record a swing in his favour, and the only Liberal from a Perth-based seat. " - he actually got the smallest swing of the (few) sitting Liberal MPs in WA. He is also the only Liberal MP representing any of the seats in Perth, with the ALP holding the rest.
  • The article doesn't cover Peter Dutton's very strong criticisms of Hastie's performance as the Shadow Defence Minister. From memory, Niki Savva reached a similar conclusion in her book Earthquake.
  • The 'China' section seems too long - can his views be summarised rather than presented in a blow by blow way?
  • "On 4 June 2020, the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Hastie joined a group of nineteen other politicians from eight countries and the European Parliament to form the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China." - not referenced
  • The article doesn't currently cover Hastie's involvement in legal actions relating to Ben Roberts-Smith and alleged war crimes more generally.
  • The 'views' section would benefit from a sub-section on his views on national security, which are generally described as hawkish. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
@Nick-D, cheers for your feedback and I'll try and see what I can do over the coming week. Re: the page having been previously infected by persons with undisclosed COIs, I think you're entirely correct. During the PR, GA and this process, I've exercised a bit of material that was obvious WP:OR, which I imagine landed in the article from those persons. I'm not sure if it has all been exorcised as yet, but it's getting there. TarnishedPathtalk 08:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(
)
Hastie serving in Afghanistan in 2009
Hastie serving in Afghanistan in 2009
Improved to Good Article status by TarnishedPath (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 28 past nominations.

TarnishedPathtalk 06:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC).

    General eligibility:

    Policy compliance:

    More information Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation ...
    Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
    Close
    More information Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. ...
    Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
    Close
    QPQ: Done.

    Overall: Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

    @Hawkeye7:, two QPQs as promised. TarnishedPathtalk 12:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    • The 'serving in Afghanistan' picture is kind of a giveaway. The 'Andrew Hastie' category on Commons has a lot of photos of him performing political activities; we should use one of those. DS (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    Hastie in panel discussion in 2023
    Hastie in panel discussion in 2023
    • @DragonflySixtyseven:, no objections to other photos; however, we're not able to use the official portrait one as that's currently going through a deletion discussion, which I doubt it will survive. Here's another which I've just added to the article. TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    • Approved. FWIW, I prefer the Afghanistan image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
    The Afghanistan image significantly weakens the hook, as does the caption "serving in Afghanistan". The hook is not "a soldier had to order his subordinates to not mutilate corpses", it's "a political figure had to order his subordinates not to mutilate corpses". The latter is a good hook, because it's unexpected. It's man bites dog. The former is a bad hook. Using a picture of him serving in Afghanistan would make the good hook into a bad hook. DS (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    Military hooks generally do better than ones about Australian politicians, and the Afghanistan mention would give it broader appeal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
    I'm easy either way. Lets leave it to the promoter, there's no guarantee it would get an image spot in any case. TarnishedPathtalk 08:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

    Related Articles

    Wikiwand AI