Talk:Wikinews interviews Australian Fusion Party President Drew Wolfendale

Original reporting notes

The interview was conducted by Sheminghui.WU with the help of Gryllida.

Original reporting notes were compiled by Michael.C.Wright.

Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence

Original email from Mr.Wolfendale forwarded to scoop on July 12.

Notes labled MCW Note were added by Michael.C.Wright.

Wikinews: Do you agree to release the answers under the licence named above?

Mr. Wolfendale: I agree to release my answers under the creative commons attribution 4.0 licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Wikinews: Please briefly introduce yourself. If you desire, please take a photo and send it to me with a note that it is released under the same creative commons licence and it was not published elsewhere under another licence.

Mr. Wolfendale: I’m Drew Wolfendale, and I’m running for the Senate with the Fusion Party Australia Coalition because I would like to see us move towards a better form of representational government, as a necessary step towards building a government capable of handling the challenges of the future.

MCW Note: Ran for a senate seat but did not win.[1]

I am an Adelaide local from the northern suburbs, born and raised. I completed a Bachelor of Engineering in Mining at Adelaide University, and later pursued postgraduate studies in finance and economics at Adelaide University and at Göteborg Handelshögskolan (The Gothenburg School of Economics) in Sweden.

MCW Note: Mr. Wolfendale has publicly stated this.[2], [3] Wikinews did not independently verify it.

Other than my more recent role as President of the party, I have worked principally with the railway industry with a focus on problem identification and solution building within complex systems, within the strategic asset management planning field where I continue to work and ultimately in a data systems integration advisory role. I am also a Director at Humanists Australia.

MCW Note: President of Fusion Party.[4]

MCW Note: "I have worked principally with the railway industry..."Mr. Wolfendale has publicly stated this.[5], [6] Wikinews did not independently verify it.

MCW Note: "I am also a Director at Humanists Australia." Mr. Wolfendale is not listed[7] as a director at Humanists Australia. Wikinews requested confirmation from Humanists Australia on August 20 and is awaiting a response.

MCW Note: I received confirmation from Humanists Australia on August 24, via email, that Wolfendale is a director at Humanists Australia.

Wikinews: When did you join the party? What motivated your decision?

Mr. Wolfendale: I joined the precursor Science Party in 2017 for its focus on evidence-based policy, after previously organising with some friends to develop evidence-based policy.

MCW Note: Membership in the Science Party.[8]

Wikinews: What is your contribution to the party?

Mr. Wolfendale: I led the development of the value framework which ultimately underpinned the formation of Fusion.

MCW Note: Wolfendale has publicly stated he “Finalised and Published the Full Party Values Framework.”[9] Wikinews has not independently verified this claim or his statement that the framework “ultimately underpinned the formation of Fusion.” The party’s own explanation of the Value Framework makes no reference, explicit or implicit, to its role in the party’s formation and describes the framework[10] as a policy-development tool, not a founding principle.

Wikinews: Were (you/members of your party) successfully elected previously? What have (you/your party) contributed to the government while you were in (Senate/etc)? No

Wikinews: What are your key points for the upcoming election? What would you aim to achieve?(Even if your party is not participating in this election, we would still welcome your perspective.)

Mr. Wolfendale: Personally my key points are Tax Reform and Electoral Reform

Wikinews: What are your key allies this election?

Wikinews: What parties are your key enemies in this election? What are their key points and what do you think they are doing wrong about them?What is your opinion on 'polarization' of the political scene in the country?How would you suggest an average citizen to improve their political and/or economical literacy?

Wikinews: How would you suggest an average citizen to improve the performance of Australia in economical, scientific or political areas?

Mr. Wolfendale: Recognise that serious change is needed to maintain our current high standard of living - and look for people who are tackling it as a serious problem, not selling "easy" solutions.

Wikinews: What is your position on climate change?

Mr. Wolfendale: I fully endorse the goals of the Climate Rescue Accord

Wikinews: What is your position on environmental pollution?

Mr. Wolfendale: We need to manage it, and we need to shift our focus to regeneration and restoration rather than prevention.

Wikinews: What do you think about public vs private schools?

Mr. Wolfendale: Private schools play an important role in Australian society for a range of historical reasons, and changing that is a battle with more harm than good - but I firmly believe that the funding arrangements are unfairly favourable to private schools, and the government funding should be focused on public schools far more than it currently is.

Wikinews: What can an average citizen do to improve the environment in regards to climate change or environmental pollution?

Mr. Wolfendale: Vote Better.

Wikinews: What is your position about energy transition? Do you support such new forms of energy sources as nuclear power plants, solar or wind farms, hydro? What is your position on development of energy storage technologies?

Mr. Wolfendale: I support all forms of low-carbon energy, including nuclear, though I don't see there being a large need for it in Australia (targeting perhaps 5% of the national energy supply would be more than reasonable).

I am excited by the current progress being made on clean fusion energy, which would make most other forms of energy obsolete.

For energy storage, I think it's vitally important to have distributed energy storage on our grid, and I would like to see substantial government investment in the much more sustainable sodium-ion battery technology that's beginning to take off.

Wikinews: How would you suggest supporting small businesses?

Mr. Wolfendale: Small businesses benefit best in a society that minimises barriers to both economic involvement, and political representation. (I discuss the Mechanics of Prosperity on my site.) The best support for small business is a healthy society, a competitive market, and a tax regime that discourages monopolisation.

Wikinews: How would you suggest supporting education institutions such as public schools and universities?

Wikinews: How would you suggest solving the issue with affordability of housing?

Mr. Wolfendale: We must restructure our housing market to prevent speculation. The focus of the housing market should be for people to live in them. Profiteering off housing without directly improving the quality or supply of housing should be made impossible.

Wikinews: What is your position about the 'made in Australia' campaign and/or tariffs?

Mr. Wolfendale:The made in australia campaign is an excellent campaign for providing consumers with informed choices. The potential harms and benefits of tariffs need to be considered far more seriously than they have been in recent geopolitical events.

Wikinews: Anything else you would like to add?

Mr. Wolfendale: Australia has had it too good for too long, and has relied for too long on our ahead-of-their-time political institutions as a defence to the troubles of other countries.

Our institutions are no longer up to the task, and we will learn this the hard way if we don't take serious consideration of the challenges before us.

Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation

Full email interview forwarded to Scoop.

Note from Sheminghui.WU : Also a side note: Mr. Wolfendale did respond to my email two days ago, It seems that he was quite busy recently. He also briefly answered a question I had about Wikimedia in an email.(forwarded too)

Confirmation of email receipt by accredited reporter

• The full interview as received[11] via Scoop on July 12. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
• Gryllida did, see the front of OR confirmation.
• On August 15, 2025, Mr. Wolfendale replied to a request to verify identity and interview responses. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

What's going on here

@Gryllida BigKrow (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Gyllida seems to be busy these days. Could you please help add Categories and check the newly added statements? Thank you ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, is the title too long? You can also give your ideas, thanks a lot~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Almost ready for review

Our policy on Wikinews:Original reporting (OR) requires notes on the collaboration page to verify any firsthand reporting. OR articles must also list at least one source and follow policies like WN:NPOV. Reviewers need to confirm that Mr. Wolfendale was interviewed. The quickest way to do this is for him to email Scoop@wn-reporters.org from a verifiable address, confirming the interview and the article's accuracy.

For neutrality, please ensure all analysis or interpretation is clearly attributed. Two editor’s notes currently read as uncredited analysis:

• Value Framework: Describing it as “an innovative ‘Value Framework’” introduces subjective bias. Consider summarizing it more plainly or attributing such language to Wolfendale or the party.
• Mechanics of Prosperity: This section is detailed and reads like policy analysis. Either attribute it directly to Wolfendale as paraphrased content or condense it into a more neutral summary.

Post any questions you have here so that any available reviewer or contributor can help.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

For Value Framework and Mechanics of Prosperity, Mr.Drew sent me links about them and suggest me have a look myself. I could post the link as source. Well Mr.Drew is quite busy these days I think, how about I just forward our interview process as a email text between us to Scoop@wn-reporters.org, then not only can you verify that he actually did the interview, but you can also verify the authenticity of all the content. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I have forwarded the text version from my email exchange with Drew to the WN email address. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I will try to neutralize it after ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Everyone, please feel free to participate in the editing, thanks a lot ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Mr. Drew? Why by first name? @Sheminghui.WU BigKrow (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

That's Absolutely True ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

No one review the article and verify? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but the SPTF recommendation to close Wikinews has taken up much of my time and seems to have disrupted general activity here. Many other reviewers have also been relatively quiet, for reasons unknown.

That said, the article currently lists no sources and provides no talk page notes about the interview, so there’s nothing verifiable. For instance, the statement “He explicitly supported low-carbon energy development” needs a source or supporting note.

I did receive the email sent to Scoop, but we still need to confirm that it came from Mr. Wolfendale. For verification, he should respond directly to confirm the interview took place. I’ve sent him an email to request this.

In the meantime, the article should list at least one source, and the reporter should add notes here. Have all claims made by Mr. Wolfendale in the interview been independently verified by the reporter? Those are the types of notes we need on this talk page.

Neutrality and balance can also be further improved. The three “Reporter’s Notes,” while attributed, are long and border on editorializing. They may benefit from being shortened and framed more clearly as summaries of Wolfendale’s views.

For balance, consider including a counterpoint to Wolfendale’s statement about Australia’s “long-standing sense of institutional superiority.”Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reply.

First, I don’t understand why, in an interview piece, we need to add content that rebuts what the interviewee said to 'make it neutral'? That’s really strange. (The neutrality of Wikimedia should only include its own neutrality right. If you insist on posting a rebuttal at this time, it will appear to be non-neutral maybe.)

Second, in the forwarded email, you should be able to see that it’s from Drew’s official email account, right? Isn’t that enough? If not show, I can send you screenshots of the communication thread.

Third, I have to vent a little: Is there no one active on enwiki? Why are the procedures so complicated? If this were zhwikinews, plenty of people would’ve already stepped in to lend a hand. Could someone more skilled in English writing polish those three annotated sections? I don’t understand how to revise them— this is a wiki really, Am I the only one here?

~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding balance; we’re not asking anyone to rebut the interviewee. Our neutral point of view policy requires that we present all significant views fairly. This means that if an interview includes strong or evaluative claims—like Wolfendale’s statement that “a long-standing sense of institutional superiority has trapped Australia in complacency,” we should consider whether a contrasting perspective is appropriate for balance.

For example, another political figure might view those "traditional political systems" not as signs of complacency, but as sources of long-term stability or democratic strength. Including such a view isn’t a rebuttal. It’s a way to reflect the broader political conversation and meet our standard of neutrality.

Regarding verification; it does appear the email came from Mr. Wolfendale’s official address, and I appreciate you forwarding it. In cases like this, we simply need to trust but verify. It’s not about mistrust. It's standard journalistic practice to ensure authenticity. The best way to protect both the article and Wikinews is to have Mr. Wolfendale confirm directly (ideally from the same address) that he participated in the interview and that the content is accurate.

One way to put it is "As a journalist skepticism is your job. As a citizen skepticism is a survival skill."[12] We should verify the responses indeed came from Wolfendale and also verify all of his responses as well. Verification protects us and our readers from spin, propaganda, etc.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood, but I can't do it. I need help. Also, your fact-checking process is really redundant. What if he doesn't reply to your email? Will the article not be published? Even if he replies to you, he will use this official personal email address. What's the point? Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

If he doesn’t reply, we can’t confirm the interview is real, and we can’t publish the article. If the interview later turns out to be fake (I’m not saying it is, just explaining), and we didn’t try to verify it, that would violate standard journalism ethics. It could also lead to serious legal issues for the author and possibly the publisher, especially if someone’s reputation is harmed. A real example is the case of Stephen Glass.

The Society of Professional Journalists lists this as their first ethical imperative[13]:

[Journalists should] take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.

I sent a verification email to Wolfendale’s official address. It’s the same one listed online and the same as the email you forwarded to Scoop. If he replies, we’ll have confirmation that he wrote it and gave the interview.

If you haven’t already, you might remind him to check his inbox. He may just be busy and forgot. In the meantime, you can also fact-check the interview answers. Here’s an example where I "interviewed" ChatGPT and verified each answer as true, false, or opinion.

For future interviews, it helps to involve reviewers early so we can handle issues like this in time (we're here to help). When doing email interviews, you can also ask the interviewee to CC Scoop in their reply. That makes verification fast and easy.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand you, and it is right to be rigorous. But I don't understand the logic here. If the person on the other end of the email is not Mr. Wolfendale but an imposter or something, what is the point of asking again? This email address is Mr. Wolfendale's personal email address that is publicly displayed on his personal website and the party website.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

For the fact-check the interview answers, the actual content of this interview is not very much, mainly some abstract concepts, I don't think there is anything can be suspicious. This is my review, you can review it ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida, I just realized Mr. Wolfendale addressed you by name in his interview. Have you received an email directly from his work email address? If so, we have already verified his identity. Is this an article you are already involved with as a reviewer? If so, I'll take a step back and let you proceed. I can even help with some of the sourcing and language edits in that case, as a non-reviewer of the article.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Of course, I'm also an an accredited reporter on zhwn, you can also check my name there. Mr.Wolfendale said the both in the email. Ms Gryllida wrote the most of the question (Obviously, this is an excellent cross-language community collaboration) an To be honest, Mr.Wolfendale has not responded to my emails in the past few days, I don't know ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Gryllida said she's quite busy these days and also have some out-wiki works to do, and she actually reviewd this article and gave me an suggestion (add a paragraph in front) in Telegram.~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

> Gryllida said she's quite busy these days and also have some out-wiki works to do

In addition to the ping above, I've also reached out to her on IRC. She's logged in there currently and not marked as 'away.' Hopefully she has enough time to respond here and shed some light on the issue.

I know this is frustrating you and I'm trying to work through it in the most transparent and expedient way that still complies with our policies and guidelines.

I won't be available for the rest of today but I should be back online tomorrow morning, PST.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

So everyone just so busy...~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone here? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am still here. But we now have another problem. Our email system is down. Even if Mr. Wolfendale has responded, and if the email didn't bounce, none of the reviewers have access to their email to see it. I have notified the email admin but they have not yet responded.

I believe the SPTF's announcement has had a significant, disruptive impact on en.WN. It seems many have already given up.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 12:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It's great to see you here. I still don't quite understand what this extra step of verification is. What if a reporter goes to do some interviews or original news, but only has a recording and can't contact the person? Mr. Wolfendale has authorized the text to be released under CC4.0, and he was also interviewed by two certified reporter/administrator, so why can't it be released? I said before he didn't even reply to my emails these days, I don't know if he will reply to Scoop, because I am not him ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your persistence and attention. In addition, if I understand correctly, you seem to want me to introduce zhwn's review mechanism in WM. I have [introduced it https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_consultation_about_Wikinews#Please_for_the_love_of_God,_give_us_more_reviewers_at_English_Wikinews], if you havn't seen it. If possible, could you also introduce the "revitalization action" taken by enwn recently? I have seen this in many places discussed in WM, what are some new attempts enwn made and how's the effect? I believe that even if some people give up on enwn, there are still more people who enwn than zhwn, so don't worry too much about this. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Having weathered this round of reviews, it's clear that different language versions of WN need more cooperation and communication—sometimes, you could even say, they need to huddle together for warmth. This is precisely what Gryllida and I have been doing all along. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work and patience and sorry this is a long response...

To clarify a few things:

• Why another email is needed: Even though the email came from Mr. Wolfendale’s official address, it was forwarded to Scoop. To confirm it's really from him, we need him to send a message directly to Scoop. That way, we know the content is authentic and approved by him. It’s not about mistrust—this is a standard step in journalism to protect everyone involved, including you.
• About zh.Wikinews accreditation: Your accredited status on zh.WN is respected, but each Wikinews has its own review system. On en.WN, we still need to follow our local rules for WN:Original reporting, including verification and detailed talk page notes.
• Gryllida’s role: If @Gryllida received the interview responses directly from Mr. Wolfendale, or conducted the interview herself, that may satisfy the verification step. But we need her to confirm that publicly on this talk page.
• If neither Wolfendale nor Gryllida replies: If we can’t verify the interview, we unfortunately can’t publish it as original reporting. However, you could try rewriting it as a synthesis article, using independent sources instead. However, with non-OR, synthesis articles we have a relatively strict WN:Freshness requirement. We're probably beyond Freshness even with the OR at this point.
• Our email system is still down: Even if Wolfendale has responded recently, I can't verify because the wn-reporters.org email server is offline.
• Our revitalization project: Currently we're running a Monthly top article challenge. I believe this has helped focus everyone on publishing quality articles that readers want to read and we measure this through user (not bot, spider, or crawler) page-views. Details at the link and I'm happy to answer further questions about it.

> it's clear that different language versions of WN need more cooperation and communication

Agreed. Maybe part of our revitalization could include easier (not automatic) ways for flagged users in one language to gain flags in another. That could support multilingual contributors who want to work across language projects, such as yourself.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know if it's nighttime there too, please take care and rest well.

I know that accredited reporter are independent on different websites, I listed them here only because it is indeed a cross-wiki collaboration. I'm sorry for not adding zhwn's annotation. I also respect our enwn's policy, but I still think this verification step is little bit unreasonable and repetitive, because technically it seems to be no different. If the forwarded email doesn't work, I can provide a screenshot(or anything I can), as I said before. Of course, I also understand that the policy cannot be changed because of an article. Anyway, thank you for your reply, let's continue to wait. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

(But did you notice that the interview text itself implies that Gryllida participated in the interview?) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I did. That is what prompted my question here. I think @Gryllida could clear up a lot of this. She is even welcome to review and publish the article herself if she hasn't become too involved in the development of the article. However, it's hard to tell her involvement from just the article and the talk page. Neither indicates much involvement at all.

For an update on the email server issue; it is still down.

I also believe we are beyond reasonable WN:Freshness for this article, unfortunately. I was hopeful for this article. It is awesome you scored such an interview and very unfortunate that our processes and lack of active reviewers got in the way. Hopefully we can change both of those in the near future.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued attention. The public consultation has entered its last day, so we can take a break on this as well. I have contacted Gryllida and I hope she will respond soon. As for this interview, I believe that most of its content is not very timely, so don't worry too much. It's a pity that this interview could not go deeper, but it does have some value. Thanks ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we also need to promote the unification of copyright agreements and more trust cooperation (seeking a consensus) between different language versions in the future, so that translators can translate news into different language versions without problem. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Stale

@Michael.C.Wright May I ask, is it true that even an interview like this should be subject to a 5-7 day timeliness requirement? This is truly unreasonable and needs improvement. If you look at the original email I sent, you'll see that the interview was already over ten days old, even when this page was created. Interview is a form of news, and its timeliness varies depending on its content. This should be a consensus. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a point of contention. You’re right that we allow more leeway for OR under WN:Freshness, though policy doesn’t define a specific time limit, only that OR "has the potential to extend our freshness horizon by days or even weeks, depending on the nature of the original material."[14]

Part of the issue is that Scoop email access is currently down. I recall the interview was done in early May, which already pushes the limits of freshness.

We’ve had recent discussions on this here and here. Where policy lacks a clear line, we usually rely on consensus. But with only one active reviewer, there’s no room for debate.

Current, critical problems:

1. I’m not comfortable publishing without verifying the interviewee’s identity. Another reviewer could choose differently.
2. We have not heard back from the interviewee for verification, though Gryllida may be able to vouch for it.
3. Gryllida seems involved but hasn’t responded.
4. Only one active reviewer limits policy discussion.
5. There are still some issues (that we could work through) of neutrality.
6. Wolfendale may have recently responded, but Scoop access is now down.

Unless something changes, we’ll likely have to abandon this and focus elsewhere. I'm happy to flag it so that it does not get deleted and we can wait and see what shakes out. We could work through the neutrality issues while we wait. But again, without something else changing with numbers 1-4 above, I don't see a path to publication for this article. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that interviews as interviews are completely different from regular original report. All I know, as a journalism amateur, is that the timeliness of this article (or articles like it) is virtually unlimited, because what we're reporting isn't "Wow, the Fusion Party chairman gave an interview to Wikinews," but "What does the Fusion Party chairman think?" Plus, the content isn't about anything ephemeral, so each of these topics could potentially last for years. From my perspective, this article might not be completely outdated even next year. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida: ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida 13:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am busy >16h a day at present, could you please tell me what you want me to do. I cannot read all discussion yet, maybe in a few days.

I started reading text above. Why on earth "cannot verify interviewees identity". Ask them for their official email, send a message, get a reply, done.

I cannot read any more. It is 23:40 and i planned to awaken at 7am. Gryllida 13:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Simply just check if you did the interviews and communication with me together or not, yes or no, because Im not a local credited reporter so I cant prove that to the community. Thanks~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

OR confirmation

hi. I got communication from the interviewer and interviewee via mail. For information of reviewers. I confirm the interview took place via email and the interviewee indeed is whom they represented as they communicate from an official party address. I confirm their replies to interview are posted in accordance with their email, and were not tampered with. Please let me know if further information is required. Gryllida 11:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@@Michael.C.Wright: Finally, the other user, Gryllida's reply pls check ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m glad Gryllida responded and verified the interview and interviewee. Since the interview is the focal event and there haven’t been any significant developments to make it outdated (that I'm aware of), I believe it’s still relevant. @RockerballAustralia, Bddpaux, Heavy Water, Gryllida: that said, I’m open to discussion if another reviewer sees it differently.

To become publishable, the article still needs at least one source. Any statement not supported by the interview must be sourced, and anything from the interview should be clearly attributed to Mr. Wolfendale.

For example, the background on the Fusion Party and other factual claims outside the interview need sourcing. The lede also needs revision. Phrases such as "key issues concerning voters" are unsubstantiated without polling or third-party support.

The article currently presents only Wolfendale’s perspective. While that’s acceptable for an interview, stronger claims such as his criticism of Australian institutions, should be balanced or contextualized to meet WN:NPOV. As the policy states, "Writing objectively can be conceived as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them." If we present only one side of a dispute, we’re not characterizing it, we're merely reporting one side unopposed, which risks bias by omission.

The "Reporter’s Notes" are now attributed, which helps, but they remain dense and occasionally read as analysis. Consider simplifying to improve clarity and avoid drifting into interpretation.

Reviewers can reword for neutrality, but sourcing must be added by the reporter or another contributor. I’ve marked statements needing sources with {{verify}}, which will appear as "unsourced." You can use User:Michael.C.Wright/MarkupManager to hide or remove them with one click.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Michael.C.Wright. As a wiki, I hope reporters with richer local expertise can participate in improving articles, as I am truly unable to do so despite my willingness. Thank you in advance.

Also reference: https://wolfofauspol.me/mechanics-of-prosperity Mechanics of prosperity

https://wolfofauspol.me/affordable-housing Preventing real estate speculation

https://www.fusionparty.org.au/our_values#:~:text=Fusion%27s%20Values%20are%20organized%20into%20a%20Value%20Framework,and%20your%20final%20value%20as%20the%20most%20practical. Value Framework

My annotations still have many shortcomings and my writing style is not very good. I hope you can participate in improving it and complete this article together. Thank you. I'm really sleepy, Good Night. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

I have trouble collaborating on the added 'verify' notes. Please see my comments below.

1. "Following the conclusion of the 2025 Australian federal election, Wikinews conducted an exclusive interview with Fusion Party President Mr. Drew Wolfendale, focusing on key issues[Unsourced] concerning voters." What is unsourced here? Obviously that was the key issues that that person considers to be key issues. there is no source from government that officially says 'ok, here is a list of key issues'.

2. this is a small party, this is why it is called 'emerging'. i.e., small and growing. there is no source that could be added to support this statement. if you mean 'this is not neutral', then specify so. don't request a source for this statement.

3. this whole part "Wolfendale sharply criticized Australia's need to break free from its path dependence on traditional political systems[Unsourced] to tackle challenges like energy transition and the housing crisis[Unsourced].

He explicitly supported low-carbon energy development[Unsourced], including 5% nuclear power[Unsourced] in the mix. He advocated for restructuring the housing market order to curb speculation and shared unique insights on supporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the "Australian Made" campaign[Unsourced]. Wolfendale also warned that "a long-standing sense of institutional superiority has trapped Australia in complacency when facing challenges."[Unsourced]" i think is supposed to be summary from the interview contents. are the stuffs marked as unsourced truly not supported by the contents of the interview? please advise.

Please query the live chat #wikinews-en ^{live connect} for collaboration if desired; please attempt to reply as soon as you can, and in as short a reply as possible, as doing otherwise may risk the article becoming expired or delayed.

Regards, -- Gryllida 03:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

If anyone has a better lead, feel free to suggest it.(This introduction is basically translated from the Chinese version) However, yes, since this party was only established four years ago, I think calling it an emerging party is not an issue. Perhaps adding a source for the founding date? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

> I have trouble collaborating on the added 'verify' notes.

You might find that using {{verify}} notes helps you understand WN:CS better, by getting into the habit of identifying the source for every statement. Otherwise, as I stated above, feel free to use User:Michael.C.Wright/MarkupManager to hide or remove {{verify}}.

Regarding your numbered notes:

1. I explained that above. You said, "there is no source from government that officially says 'ok, here is a list of key issues'." If there is no source, government, third party poll, or otherwise, the statement should be removed based on WN:CS.
2. We need a source stating Wolfendale is the leader of the party and that the party is an emerging party per WN:CS. Policy is clear; "Every piece of information in a Wikinews article must be referenced."
3. > are the stuffs marked as unsourced truly not supported by the contents of the interview? To better answer this question as a contributor to the article, you can break the full paragraph down into it's constituent statements and provide quotes from the interview that support each statement.

For example, what statement in the interview supports that Wolfendale "sharply criticized Australia's need to break free from its path dependence on traditional political systems"? None of his answers use the term "traditional political systems." Therefore is that term our interpretation of one of his answers? If so that is not sourced, analytical or speculative, and therefore not neutral.

> Please query the live chat #wikinews-en ^{live connect} for collaboration if desired;

I have tried to contact you via IRC repeatedly. As I type this I'm active in IRC and have again queried you, again with no response. I assume you are using Quassel, the tool you've recently recommended to others and therefore you have received all of my previous messages in IRC, whether you are active in IRC at the time or not (you were logged in every time I pinged you in IRC).

I have also pinged you above, on this talk page repeatedly since July 19. I pinged you above with a direct, concise, and critical question to the article's movement forward. It therefore appears to me that you have chosen not to respond, even with a short note stating you are busy and not available for further contribution to this article.

My role is not to make sure you respond timely to collaboration requests on an article you were involved with from the start. As you have articulated in Wikinews:Watching pages and Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals#Collaboration guide, it is the role of the contributor to remain engaged and involved in articles they previously contributed to or clearly state when they need to step away, all in the service of successful, journalistic collaboration.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, the introduction of this article was translated from zhwn, and the original author of the introduction is not me. Perhaps the introduction is not appropriate. I think the original author's original intention was indeed to give a summary of the full text, but you or other editors can improve it at will. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the current idea is very clear: modify the introduction into a summary of the full text without the need for sources (this I cannot do very well), and add the three sources I gave above in turn. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

For the record, "I have tried to contact you via IRC repeatedly. As I type this I'm active in IRC and have again queried you, again with no response." will work better if you remain online in IRC. I've added this information to WN:IRC:

• Please note that after asking a question on IRC, do not disappear, as then nobody will be able to reply to you; it is recommended to leave the chat window open for 2-3 days to allow another volunteer to reply.

This may look hilarious, but after a few trials and errors, if the chat client remains open, after some luck, two users may find a time when they're both available for a real time communication. Only if they try.

About article, I asked a question somewhere towards the end of the page. I hope to be able to assist with further revisions.

Hope this helps. Gryllida 14:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There was no question posted to IRC. As a courtesy I notified you via IRC of the ongoing discussion here. My availability in IRC or lack there-of, to clarify that courtesy notice to you, played no role in your delayed response.

> This may look hilarious...

I find nothing about this funny.

>I hope to be able to assist with further revisions.

Please, do step in and revise. There is still plenty to do, as requested, for example here, here, here, here, here, and your own talk page here. As you stated at your talk page, you "can revise it" and re-submit it for review.

I have begun verifying the responses in the interview above. "The onus is on you as the reporter, to make sure those facts are correct."[15] Since you were involved in the interview, you are encouraged to work through the responses and verify as necessary.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Given the number of unresolved problems; lack of sourcing and attribution, non-neutral language, staleness, and at times significant resistance to feedback from one contributor, I’m not inclined to push the envelope by using WN:IAR to publish this article. While I’m willing to consider exceptions for strong work that meets most standards, publishing this article as it stands would require overlooking too many policy requirements at once.

This article was under review for three weeks before being marked as “stale” for five days, then marked “not stale” but still in editing. In that time, no other reviewer has stepped in to publish it or to dispute my preliminary assessment. Likewise, no other contributors, including the second contributor involved, have stepped in to address the core issues preventing review. That lack of engagement suggests there’s no consensus or appetite among reviewers or contributors to make the number of exceptions or edits it would require to make this publishable.

That said, I want to acknowledge the efforts of the original contributor who remained engaged throughout this process. This was their first article for English Wikinews, English is not their first language, and they faced significant hurdles in navigating our processes and policies. Their willingness to keep working on the piece is appreciated.

Working through this article has highlighted has highlighted some important lessons for future original reporting and interviews:

1. Work early with uninvolved reviewers to verify the interviewee’s identity.
2. Understand and follow core policies such as WN:CS, WN:NPOV, and WN:OR before requesting review.
3. Timely collaboration is critical when working with deadlines such as WN:Freshness.

Making multiple allowances here for freshness, for missing sources and talk page notes, and for neutrality, would set a precedent for bypassing core review standards when they become inconvenient. That undermines fairness to contributors who do meet those standards and weakens the credibility of the review process itself.

I don’t consider this article reviewable in its current state, and given the time elapsed, it is likely too stale to publish even if the issues were resolved.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have made the assertion two days ago that this article will not become obsolete. The sources for the three annotations have already been given, and what remains is the introduction, which can be delete some and rewritten as a summary of the full article. Sources should not be needed, as this is a summary written by the reporter himself. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

> The sources for the three annotations have already been given

Unfortunately, until they are listed in the Sources section of the article, they are not considered sources. Reviewers can not add sources and remain independent.

> Sources should not be needed, as this is a summary written by the reporter himself.

Here, we require sources for every single statement, per WN:CS. There are no exceptions beyond the blatantly obvious (i.e., the Pope is a Catholic).

The source for the Q&A will be the full interview you performed. That full interview should be provided here in the talk page, omitting all sensitive information but including all questions and answers. It is also strongly recommended (and preferred) that you, as the interviewer and journalist, verify all of the interviewee's statements. An example of how this can be done is here.

If readers need to verify any of his answers, our talk page should assist them with links and possibly even explanations (as done in the provided example).Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

As for the "three weeks of review" issue, it's clear that I submitted it too early. At the time, Wikinews was under scrutiny from various parties, and I wanted to submit an interview as soon as possible. If everyone really care about the page's history, we can delete it and create it again. But it really doesn't make any difference. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

So, if we still want to publish, we need someone who is familiar with local conventions and English writing to rewrite the brief introduction and wording, and add the source of the annotation according to local rules. That's how simple it is. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Our Wikinews:Newsworthiness guideline recommends "An unpublished article is typically considered stale when it's five to seven days old."

It goes on to clarify that WN:OR is an exception: "Exclusive content has the potential to extend our freshness horizon by days or even weeks, depending on the nature of the original material."

The focal event for the article is the interview. But the focal event for the interview is the May election. Contributors may be able to selectively use some of the Q's and A's to make the article "evergreen," while leaving the full interview in the talk page for transparency. But I would like to hear from another, uninvolved reviewer to help make that decision.

As it stands, I am inclined to call it stale but am open to feedback.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

As the editor-in-chief of this article, I believe the election is just a cover and not that important. While it would be better to capitalize on this timeliness, it's also perfectly fine if it isn't. Much of the interview content is about Australian policy for this year and the coming years, which has no direct connection to the election. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright I don't understand footnotes. but If they were simply to indicate which statements require citations at the end, I've already add them. But I don't know how Wikinews uses numerical citations. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

We don’t use inline numerical citations or footnotes in articles, but I think we should. The common objection is that they don’t look journalistic. But appearance shouldn’t outweigh the clear benefits they offer, especially for non-professional, citizen journalists on a wiki platform.

I won't likely have time today to get back to this article. I will be traveling for a few weeks and will have limited and sporadic access to Wikinews. I'll check back when I can.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I think so. Since there's a sentence-by-sentence requirement for citing sources, using footnotes is indeed a good idea; it's just much better. If you're publishing a print version, you can remove the digital footnotes without affecting the appearance of the printed version. I see you're taking a Wikiholiday, but it's okay it's not in hurry, don't worry. Thank you. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The community is weird. Any consensus is spurious. Just now, one reviewer (Michael) said it wasn't outdated, and then another quickly suggested deleting it without further discussion. From the time the article was posted until now, no one has bothered to write a 100-word introduction. I'm the only one involved in any substantive editing. Seems our community is far less active than zhwn's. No one even understands whether timeliness is a factor in demanding an interview that has nothing to do with the New or not. I should obviously submit this article much later, since no one would make a simple edit anyway. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I've submitted several articles to enwn and no one has ever worked with me or even checked my wording. My experience there is even worse than on jawn, which only has a single-digit user base. I feel like this is not even a Wiki. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

There were at least three or four other people discussing at Jawn, but here it was just me and Michael C. Wright for 3 weeks. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

> no one has bothered to write a 100-word introduction

We're pretty short on contributors at the moment. We also generally let the original author handle their own, original reporting. I know this can be frustrating and hopefully we'll be able to drum up some more activity.

> Any consensus is spurious.
Agreed. We have some issues at the reviewer level, in agreeing how things should be done. That makes any consensus very difficult and that disrupts the project. Again, hopefully that can change so that we can focus on the core mission of the project.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

My personal opinion is still simple: at least from a journalistic technical perspective, this article isn't time-sensitive. Could someone please explain to me why timeliness is enough to kill this article? What impact did it have? Do you think readers are expecting, "Wow, Wikinews interviewed Johh Morrison(I don't even know who that is)," rather than the content of the interview? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

See my earlier comment and let me know what questions you have after reading it and the policy. I'm now running short on time and won't be able to reply further until likely tomorrow my time (PDT).Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright It seems no one will working on improving the introduction. Besides the term "emerging party," what other issues do you see with the introduction? Then we can work on revising it. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

┌──────┘
@Sheminghui.WU, since this is your first original reporting article on English Wikinews, I want to make sure the next steps are as clear and helpful as possible.

I’m considering stepping in under WN:IAR to help get this article published. However, before I can make that decision, the original reporter needs to post complete OR notes on the talk page.

Specifically:

• The full transcript of the interview (excluding any sensitive information), and
• Some evidence of independent verification or fact-checking of key claims or figures made by the interviewee.

As WN:OR explains:

A good article will have multiple sources quoted, but every article must have multiple sources contacted behind-the-scenes. It is not enough that the subject of the article told you that he or she is "the first Canadian to do a certain action", that he or she "operates the largest website of its genre" or "was fired from his or her job because of comments he or she made about the President". The onus is on you as the reporter, to make sure those facts are correct.

This is important not just for policy compliance, but to protect the project from preventable errors such as corrections, retractions, or legal risk, and to ensure the article is accurate and neutral.

Once that work is complete, I’ll be in a better position to either proceed under IAR or coordinate a standard review if another reviewer becomes available. Either way, the goal is the same: publish responsibly while helping contributors learn by doing.

Below is the sample OR notes structure provided when you click “Click to add OR notes” in the {{Develop}} notice. You don’t have to follow it exactly, but please make sure your notes provide clear, verifiable evidence for the reporting. That’s what reviewers rely on to confirm accuracy and protect the project from corrections, retractions, or worse.

== Original reporting notes ==

=== Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence ===

=== Interview details ===

=== On-the-spot notes ===

=== Details from broadcast report ===

=== Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation ===
''MCW note: just itemize here what was already sent to Scoop and anything you may send while building these notes, i.e., "Full email interview forwarded to Scoop".''

''Also a side note: Mr. Wolfendale did respond to my email two days ago.''

==== Confirmation of email receipt by accredited reporter ====

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright

=== Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence ===

Original email from Mr.Wolfendale forwarded to scoop.

=== Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation ===

Full email interview forwarded to Scoop.

Also a side note: Mr. Wolfendale did respond to my email two days ago, It seems that he was quite busy recently. He also briefly answered a question I had about Wikimedia in an email.(forwarded too)

==== Confirmation of email receipt by accredited reporter ====

Gryllida did, see the front of OR confirmation. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Please check if that's enough. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU, please see the #Original reporting notes section I added at the top. Our WN:OR#Talking_to_sources policy requires reporters to verify all factual statements from interviewees. Opinions don’t need verification, though they can be explored or challenged with follow-up questions. My notes above show examples of verification. These notes should make fact-checking easier, so focus on structuring them to facilitate verification rather than following standard talk page style. Approach this as a journalist responsible to your readers.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The scale of the enwn community is still too large. I envy it. It is impossible for zhwn to have a situation where reviewers cannot participate. Otherwise, wiki collaboration will just not exist anymore with the scale of zhwn's community. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

> It is impossible for zhwn to have a situation where reviewers cannot participate.

This is definitely part of our Achilles' heel. In my opinion, peer review performed by a trusted functionary as a requirement for publication is foundational for an organization hoping to earn trust from its readers. In a news environment, trust is critical.

The key for en.WN now, within the context of the m:Public consultation about Wikinews, is to search for a better 'sweet spot' between a collaborative wiki model and a strict, peer-review model.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't get it, what is the TLDR version of the above argument? I believe fusion representative replied to scoop confirming the interview contents. Gryllida 14:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright All notes have sources. Please check the source text at the end of the article; we really should have footnotes that are visible to editors. I still don't understand why the reporter can't summarize their interview in the preface, as the source for this summary is clearly the verified text at the end. As for other issues of neutrality and accuracy, I really can't help. Could you please be more specific? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Our Source policy states "every piece of information in a Wikinews article must be referenced and verifiable." For every "unsourced" listed in the article, there must be a source, listed in the Sources section that supports the statement.

Specifically:

• "...focusing on key issues concerning voters." How do we know these are the key issues concerning voters?
• "...this emerging party..." We need a source to say they are 'emerging.' We don't have a source that supports when they were formed, so technically we can't even say the party is 'new.'
• "...formed in 2021..." How do we know this?
• "through the merger of six parties including the Science Party and Pirate Party" How do we know this?
• "...its path dependence on traditional political systems..." "Path dependence" and "traditional political systems" both appear to be interpretations of what he said, which we can not do and remain neutral.

We have a rich resource of quotes in his answers to interview questions. We can directly quote him instead of interpreting what he says.

Also note that The Wolf of Auspol is his personal blog. It can absolutely be used to support coverage of what he's written or asserted. But as a blog, it carries little weight to support anything else. As a journalist, you can trust but verify, verify, verify.

My advice is to strip the article of everything but the interview and use a simple lede similar to the following:

"Wikinews interviewed Drew Wolfendale, President of the Fusion Party Australia Coalition, to discuss his views on climate policy, taxation, housing, energy, and education. Wolfendale spoke about his motivations for entering politics, the development of the party’s value framework, and his vision for Australia’s political and economic future."

After answers that should be clarified or challenged, we can (and should) present alternative, factual, verified, and cited information from a source listed in the Sources section, similar to how I've done above in the notes. Keep the responses as brief and boring as possible to ensure neutrality.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

For the formed time, see reference on Wikipedia article. The Fusion ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's try looking at this from another angle. Could you walk us through how each of the three sources listed in the article supports specific statements? In other words, for each source listed in the Sources section, map it to a specific statement made in the article.

This may make it easier to see exactly what’s missing and what’s already solid.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.WrightThey are in order I think. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The notes are basically a summary of the content of each article I think. Some of the wording may not be very sophisticated and accurate, because they are still editor's notes translated from Chinese. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright Most of the other information can be found by consulting Wikipedia as well, which is not a reliable source, but you can look at the Reference. However, you can simplify the introduction if that is appropriate for enwn. We should have done this much early. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

See this please

The Fusion doctrine, as explained by Lord Mark Sedwill, former UK National Security Advisor, emphasizes the need for a coordinated, team-based approach to national security that integrates diplomacy, defense, and development, while also engaging with the private sector and civil society. This approach recognizes that national security must be balanced with economic and societal objectives and that effectiveness comes from acting collectively with partners, notably in addressing complex challenges like those posed by China and Russia. Cooperation among allied countries, including Australia, is critical to managing geopolitical risks and economic interests while maintaining clear boundaries on unacceptable behavior by rival powers.

Regarding Australia's situation and the theme "Australia needs to break through," several recent insights highlight the challenges and opportunities:

Australia faces economic headwinds due to shifts in global trade, especially related to China's economic policies and U.S.-China tensions, which affect Australia's major export markets such as iron ore and coal. Adapting to these shifts through strategic trade and economic policies is necessary for Australia's growth and resilience.

Domestically, priorities for Australians center on cost of living, wages, taxation, housing affordability, and social services like the NDIS. There is a focus on productivity improvements and dialogue among government, business, and civil society to position Australia for future growth.

Politically, Australia's efforts must include sensible migration levels, housing infrastructure investment, and addressing climate change by transitioning from fossil fuels, with attention to social equity and economic sustainability.

An interview with the president of the Fusion or related authoritative figure sharing these perspectives would likely emphasize Australia's need to:

Foster strategic cooperation internationally to navigate geopolitical and economic challenges.

Invest in infrastructure and social policies to ease cost of living pressures and housing shortages.

Drive productivity and innovation to enhance economic competitiveness.

Balance national security demands with economic and societal goals in a complex global environment.

This approach aims for Australia to successfully "break through" current challenges and secure a sustainable and prosperous future. The specifics of such an interview would reflect these themes based on current Australian strategic and economic discourse. BigKrow (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sheminghui.WU BigKrow (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@BigKrow, thank you for this. How does this relate to the draft article and the interview?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright thought it might help sorry BigKrow (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @BigKrow, regarding this statement. Could you clarify whether this is your own analysis, based on research you conducted, or if you used another tool (such as AI) to generate it?

We're working to ensure the article stays accurate and neutral, so understanding the source of this information will help us decide whether and how it can be used. If AI was involved, that may be fine to discuss if it is relevant and related. We just need to make sure we avoid introducing anything unverifiable or misleading into the article.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It's AI. Is that ok? @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless you can find where Drew Wolfendale or the Fusion Party have explicitly stated that their platform aligns with or draws inspiration from the Fusion Doctrine, any connection is speculative and not verifiable under Wikinews sourcing standards. Did you find any connection or did the AI/LLM you used make that connection?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. You might be able to contribute to edit the foreword and notes. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

C/e

Hi @Sheminghui.WU please add 1 source for party merger from six parties including 2021

I also removed this bit, if it has source, please re-add

• Wolfendale also warned that "a long-standing sense of institutional superiority has trapped Australia in complacency when facing challenges."[Unsourced]

Could you please do these changes now, if not, please let me know. Thanks Gryllida 21:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida For for party merger from six parties including 2021, could we just try to use a google search, is literally right there at the six line. Added. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I tried for 15 minutes and couldn't find anything conclusive other than Wikipedia; most appreciated. Gryllida 03:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, this preface is a translation from the Chinese version, and is a summary made by Kitabc12345 himself. Please feel free to delete or modify it if it does not comply with local preferences. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't find the quote from the interview, hi @Kitabc12345 could you please clarify where the "a long-standing sense of institutional superiority has trapped Australia in complacency when facing challenges." quote came from? At least this is not a problem for reviewing, as the sourcing issues have been addressed. Gryllida 03:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

RR: add dates to sources

Hi @George Ho @Wikiwide @BigKrow @Lofi Gurl @Back ache @Md Mobashir Hossain @Almondo2025, @Dsuke1998AEOS, @Ternera, @Monsieur2137 @Asked42, @Sheminghui.WU, @excelblue (if you want yourself removed or someone else added to this list, please inquire here) A revision has been requested. Here is a list of what to do. (If/when you intend to start working on it, please Subscribe to this section and to this talk page, and post reply messages here when you started and finished editing) See below:

1) Add dates to sources

2) Re-submit to review

Thanks Gryllida 04:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not appear that any of the sources have dates. Ternera (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ternera added "date accessed" as MichaelCWright suggest. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

During my days of waiting, Mr. Wolfendale also answered several more questions via email.

"I can make comment that:

1. Did your member parties have extensive collaboration before their merger?

-> Extensive contact, but not extensive collaboration.

4. Does the Australian Pirate Party, a member of your party, maintain ties or collaborations with the Pirate Party International?(Or some other similar organization)

-> Yes, it maintain ties with the Pirate Party International.

11. Does your party cooperate with any other parties, such as the Animal Justice Party (which supports animal welfare) or Federal ICAC Now (which advocates for anti-corruption institutions)?

-> Movement- and Coalition-building are very important to us, so we endeavour to cooperate with aligned parties wherever possible. This viewpoint appears to be quite unique to us though, so who we cooperate with, and how successfully, varies wildly both by party, location, and time.

Re everything else(Mainly about political and philosophical theories), these are all things which we ultimately answer, or would hope to answer, on our website if/when we have the capacity to address them, thank you for your question list. " (Feel free to touch up the text a bit.) ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Request to clarify what needs to be done

Hi @Michael.C.Wright

Please clarify what edits are needed.

Please make minor changes yourself as needed

Thanks Gryllida 20:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I have had too much reading last 3 days and am exhausted so please answer under 100 words or so if you can Gryllida 20:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The requirements for making this article publishable have been explained repeatedly, including in my feedback from eleven days ago, which linked to multiple earlier requests for specific modifications. Since then, only two small edits have been made, and the core issues remain unresolved.

As outlined in WN:CS and WN:OR, the article cannot move forward until it meets the following requirements:

• All factual statements (including those made by the interviewee) must be verified and attributed appropriately.
• Opinions must be clearly attributed and, where relevant, balanced with additional context.
• The lede should summarize the article neutrally without unsourced assertions.
• Required sources must be properly listed and dated (even if only with a "date accessed").

These expectations are long-standing and haven’t changed. What’s missing is not clarity but follow-through on these established requirements.

To avoid further delays, contributors, especially those involved in the original reporting, need to proactively act on requested changes rather than waiting for others to make them. Given the significant time and attention already invested, continued debate without addressing the specific issues risks preventing publication entirely and disrupts the review process overall.

When the article is ready to be reviewed, it should be added to he review queue.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright Maybe, Please participate in the revision, even if we need other reviewers. Aren't there many people who have already applied? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there anyone on enwn who has a good enough command of English to help correct this? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The main barriers to publication are compliance with WN:CS and WN:OR and the article’s staleness as currently written. The interviewee’s responses must be verified, as shown in the examples above, and any unsupported statements must either be sourced or removed. The article cannot move forward until this verification and attribution work is completed by the original reporters who conducted the interview. Given the time already invested, continued debate without addressing these issues risks leaving the article permanently unpublishable.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright It seems to me that these have been verified. Are there any other statements that need verification? Could you point them out or mark them? Thanks. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that after the notes are valid, the above new questions can be inserted and this interview can be published. It seems that when interviewing other candidates before, we did not verify every sentence? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright In fact, as you can see, the respondent answered four new questions ten days ago, which further improves the timeliness of the article. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Abandoned in 1 day

@Sheminghui.WU BigKrow (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder, but I have already added new content and sent it for review. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright The party information card and annotations all have sources, so why were they deleted? We spent a month discussing these and found the source. Furthermore, since wanted to be completely faithful to the original text, why did we delete the greetings that were there? Doesn't WN allow reporters to be named? Regarding the question about Wikimedia, why was it deleted? Didn’t the interviewee say that he noticed it but would not comment on it this time? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand why every adjusted wording should be deleted. This is the way news is written. I don't believe that WN's previous interviews were also exactly the same as the original text. This is not the way to write an interview script. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

and, I don't know what you mean by "without transparency". The original text has been sent to Scoop and the email has been listed on the discussion page. How could it be more transparent? ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WN:Archive, post-publication changes need to be sighted by a reviewer within 24 hours. I left your edits unsighted during that period to allow time for another reviewer to weigh in if possible. Since no one else accepted them within the timeframe or weighed in here, I’ve rejected them in order to comply with policy.

The article was reviewed and published after extensive discussion and several revisions to ensure compliance with WN:NPOV, WN:CS, and WN:OR.

If there are broader questions about policies or review practices, the Water cooler is the right place to raise them so the community can clarify policy. That would help ensure everyone works from the same shared understanding moving forward.

I agree that some parts of policy made this process harder than it needed to be. However, changes to policy are best discussed at the Water cooler where the community can weigh in.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright I have nothing to say about this. But at least please add the issue of loss, which is in line with the policy as you mentioned before. In addition, my other modifications (such as deleting the "email" at the beginning) are actually corrections to one of your modifications, and you can manually revert back to your own editing to achieve this. Also, I'm not sure if Enwn respects the authorship of reporters, but it's not very appropriate to remove their names on many WNs. Sheminghui.WU (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

"Wikinews does not sign articles as by an author." WN:StyleMichael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 12:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright Is this a recently added hard requirement? There are too many examples like this, for example: Wikinews interviews Phil Collins, U.S. Prohibition Party presidential nominee

Also, this is not important, the first half of the paragraph is the important thing. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright Hi, I don't actually think this is subject to WN:Archive constraints. First, this is an interview done in the past, and there's no such thing as "knowledge and facts generated after publication." Second, the rules require: "Post-archival edits

After an article has been protected, it should no longer be edited on elements of content, sources, or other substance. It should be edited for non-content issues (such as spelling, typos, punctuation and so forth) on a case-by-case basis." I don't consider my changes to be "substance," but rather minor corrections to the previous editor's work during the collaborative wiki process (which it is), which is in accordance with policy. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, my edits are basically just "recoveries" of some details that were removed, you could check, it's not new. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
We don’t allow bylines, so contributor names aren’t posted on articles in the context of authorship. I didn’t remove that Q&A because it mentioned a name, but because it didn't contribute to the focal event of the article (learning more about Wolfendale in his own words). It's an administrative or house-keeping part of the interview, better suited for Talk/Collab space. It was a necessary question to ask for sure, but not one that needs to be in the article itself. Maybe I’m overlooking something. What value do you see that specific Q&A adding for readers? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 12:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright No, that's not even a Q&A. I mean the Q&A about Wikimedia. I added the signature out of respect for another contributor, Gryllida, and I wouldn't add it myself. There's no problem with that. The attribution at the time was added out of respect for another contributor, Gryllida. I wouldn’t normally add it myself. That’s not a problem. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I understand the intention behind including it. My concern is whether it serves readers: the Wikimedia Q&A felt out of context with the rest of the interview, which was framed around Wolfendale as Fusion president. Since his reply was simply “no comment,” it didn’t add substance. From your perspective, what value would keeping that exchange add for readers?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright I don't think it's necessary to delete this question, and as you mentioned earlier, you believe that every question should be included, which is in line with policy. This non-comment answer at least proves that he is paying attention to WM, right? The party he leads is also a party of knowledge sharing. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

In addition, my other modifications (such as deleting the "email" at the beginning) are actually corrections to one of your modifications, and you can manually revert back to your own editing to achieve this. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4877835 [Passed]

Revision 4877835 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article has undergone extensive development and review. While preparing it for publication, I knowingly overextended my involvement as a reviewer due to the current shortage of active contributors and reviewers. Critical time was lost in debate and attempted delegation throughout the development process, which contributed to delays and made review more challenging. As part of the review process: Verified Wolfendale’s statements where possible and added a clarifying note referencing verification details on the collaboration page. Corrected multiple interview responses to ensure they match Wolfendale’s exact words per WN:OR and WN:CS; this included removing added wording and restoring verbatim answers where changes had been made for clarity without transparency. Removed or reworked reporter’s notes, parentheticals, and clarifications that introduced synthesis, selective interpretation, or unsourced claims inconsistent with WN:NPOV and WN:CS. Added two missing questions and one missing answer for completeness and neutrality, avoiding potential bias by omission. Revised the lede to clarify that the interview was conducted over several email exchanges and to note that most of it was conducted before the election. Key takeaway: Editing interviewee responses, even to clarify meaning, should be done rarely and only with full transparency (e.g., using square brackets). Attribution and neutrality must remain paramount, particularly in original reporting interviews. While I acknowledge my involvement went further than ideal for reviewer independence, the article now accurately reflects Wolfendale’s statements, is neutrally presented, and complies with WN:OR, WN:CS, and WN:NPOV. Given our limited reviewer capacity, I am publishing this article so that it can move forward and serve the project. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4877835 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article has undergone extensive development and review. While preparing it for publication, I knowingly overextended my involvement as a reviewer due to the current shortage of active contributors and reviewers. Critical time was lost in debate and attempted delegation throughout the development process, which contributed to delays and made review more challenging. As part of the review process: Verified Wolfendale’s statements where possible and added a clarifying note referencing verification details on the collaboration page. Corrected multiple interview responses to ensure they match Wolfendale’s exact words per WN:OR and WN:CS; this included removing added wording and restoring verbatim answers where changes had been made for clarity without transparency. Removed or reworked reporter’s notes, parentheticals, and clarifications that introduced synthesis, selective interpretation, or unsourced claims inconsistent with WN:NPOV and WN:CS. Added two missing questions and one missing answer for completeness and neutrality, avoiding potential bias by omission. Revised the lede to clarify that the interview was conducted over several email exchanges and to note that most of it was conducted before the election. Key takeaway: Editing interviewee responses, even to clarify meaning, should be done rarely and only with full transparency (e.g., using square brackets). Attribution and neutrality must remain paramount, particularly in original reporting interviews. While I acknowledge my involvement went further than ideal for reviewer independence, the article now accurately reflects Wolfendale’s statements, is neutrally presented, and complies with WN:OR, WN:CS, and WN:NPOV. Given our limited reviewer capacity, I am publishing this article so that it can move forward and serve the project. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.