Talk:Mike Rann/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What happened to Manning's book link?

Have google been changing things? The online sections of the book are no longer viewable! Timeshift (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of name

Ok. Are we going to include her name or not? There seems to be an ongoing edit war. Given that she publicly came forward I'm confused by claims that this constitutes a BLP problem. Simply claiming that that is "tabloidy" isn't an argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived to Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Inclusion of name

Orderinchaos knows his stuff (not to mention an admin) so i'm more likely to believe it than not, but I believe OTRS is getting involved anyway. Personally, i'm not too concerned either way. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim that there was an OTRS issue was made by Orderinchaos. Frankly, I'm a little confused as to how the heck there would be any OTRS issue given that she went public. No one else is in a position to complain about the matter. (In my edit I made sure to leave the husband's name out which is a separate issue). JoshuaZ (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess from my perspective I can't see any pressing reason to exclude her name - she did choose to go public about the claimed affair, and as far as I can see she's not a victim. That said, I also can't see any pressing reason to include it, as the article reads ok without mentioning names, she is in no way the focus of the article, and knowing who she was doesn't give me any more insight into the events. If she was of note outside of this one event then there would be a case, of course. So if there are potential concerns I'm happy to err on the side of leaving the name out. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have previously said, if the lawyers for ABC and AAP, (neither of which are tabloids), are prepared to publish the names, I don't see the problem - I put MUCH more weight on the media's overpaid lawyers' opinions than I do on any wikipedia editor's opinion. (Including OTRS. Unless, of course, they present themselves as a legal expert in the field. (I do not believe Orderinchaos is presenting him/herself as such an expert.))

Having said that, I will state that I don't care one way or the other which names appear where; all accurate statements will be supported by references, and all the references have no hesitation about printing the names. I would say my POV is similar to Bilby's. As I have previously said, I think Orderinchaos is over-reacting. But, as I have also previously said, independent of Orderinchaos's opinion about what's "right" and "wrong", if it's that important to him/her, them I'll fall in line with his/her wishes.

Far more important than that issue is the accuracy of what's stated, and here I DO have a bone to pick with Orderinchaos. A number of his/her "improvements" are just plain innacurate, others are misleading and/or ambiguous, others are unclear, and a fourth set are his/her interpretations and/or opinions.

There is a wealth of accurate information Orderinchaos can quote, or use to verify his/her statements - we really don't also need Orderinchaos's inaccurate and/or misleading "spin" (or misinterpretation) on the matter. How about "Just the facts, Ma'am"? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article for a couple of months, and in the meantime it appears to have been subject to severe censorship. The all important story about the assault on the premier and injuries to his face has been reduced to one sentence. The section about the alleged affair is now not in chronological order, making it confusing and illogical. I can't even see a reference to the statement by the Premier that he intends to sue the broadcaster (but not the lady in question). As for the names, I think both the lady and her husband deserve to be mentioned by name just as they are in the mainstream press. I also see no reason why the essence of the allegations and premier's arguments in their denial need to be removed. All this talk about tabloids does not hold water. The story has been widely reported by the mainstream press. Such stories are all over wikipedia. BorisG (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add that both the alleged assault on Rann and the overall scandal are significant events in Rann's career. The alleged assault occurred in full view of the state's political and business elite, who were all stunned. It raised serious questions about premier's security arrangements. In turn, the revelations about the alleged affair have been reported by the press to be potentially damaging to his electoral chances in 2010 and generated some debate between his suppporters and opposition. BorisG (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the "creeping censorship". And I agree with many of your other statements and opinions. What do you propose? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I think we just need to revert some of the deletions. I don't have time now but anyone can do it. Feel free to use any part of my text above.BorisG (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that Rann made a televised apology to Ms Chantelois the article should include names. Purrum (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Polls

Archived to Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Recent Polls

There seems to be some trouble with the addition of the following section, sourced from the Advertiser here:

“ A poll conducted by the same newspaper in February 2010 had revealed that his trustworthy rate with the public had dropped way below the opposition leader Isobel Redmond. ”

There seem to be some concerns as to whether the addition of this part to the end of the section on the affair allegations is neutral and is not a synthesis of information from many sources. This polling information is certainly notable, and the quoted section does not carry any bias as far as I can tell. I can appreciate, however, that the placement of this piece of text could colour how it's perceived. However, I would point out the following quote from the same source:

“ The poll was taken in the wake of the Government's embarrassing backdown over plans to censor the internet and also a move by former Parliament House waitress Michelle Chantelois to deliver a copy of a lie-detector test to Mr Rann's office. Ms Chantelois has alleged an affair with Mr Rann, which he has vigorously rejected. ”

(emphasis added)

Since the source itself points out that the poll was taken in the wake of the alleged affair, I do not believe it constitutes a sythesis of sources to make this leap. However, as I mentioned before, placement is an issue. Would it be acceptable to move this quote, plus a mention of the fact that it was in the wake of the affair allegations to the Premier section? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the article again, I feel that this quote does, in fact, belong in the personal life section, given that this is where the whole topic is dealt with. There is already a paragraph devoted to polling after the alleged affair in this section, and this is a very important poll that needs to be in this article. I am going to re-add this section, and if anyone feels that it should be removed, please say so here. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, particularly in the absence of User talk:Timeshift9 actually explaining what he's complaining about, (as distinct from just complaining, spouting POV, and reverting). Pdfpdf (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a few issues. It is worded poorly. It is WP:POV-slanted and is WP:SYNy in that it links the poll to this incident alone, when the evidence doesn't exist. The earlier poll mentions are all Newspoll which have the largest sample size and publishes on a regular basis, and as the evidence suggests, is pretty good at getting it right. The only non-Newspoll mentioned was a Sunday Mail poll for the reason that it shows big swings back to the Libs are in the rural not metro areas where the swings are needed - perhaps a better source could have been found. I don't feel that turning the Premier page in to a list of various polling company's polls is particularly helpful. We get a Newspoll near the end of this month and another a few days before polling day. Again, I think it's very SYNy to link a swing in an Advertiser poll to Chantelois which people have consistently said won't affect their vote - other things will, and do. And just because a media outlet might be sensationalist, we have to judge on merit. Let the Chantelois story be told as it is without strawman polls. The other polls have not been used in this way. Timeshift (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(2ec) I would remind everybody of the care that needs to be taken due to our biographies of living persons policy. "1, therefore 2" is in fact WP:SYN; no evidence is presented either by the source or the poll that the two are linked. What question was being put to those answering? How was the sample determined? Those sort of questions are key to this. In essence this is a general question on trustworthiness with some media speculation attached - we have this problem all the time with the West Australian's attempted analysis of its own Westpoll results (the West is known to be sympathetic to the Liberal Party and its polls often widely deviate from those with sounder methodologies). Orderinchaos 14:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Per Timeshift9, I'm not horribly comfortable with using data from an Advertiser poll - they didn't reveal their methodology, as far as I can tell, nor their sample size, so I'm uncomfortable with using the figures, and would prefer Newspoll by a significant margin (at least 86% on two-poll preferred). The problem with the trust issue is that this is the first time the question has been asked. Given that, it has no previous figures to draw upon - we don't know if it is a drop, a rise, or no change. Similarly, as Orderinchaos noted, The Advertiser draws no connection between the figures and Chantelois except by association. It's a nice trick, but for the connection to be valid they would need something more. - Bilby (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they did reveal their sample size. They polled 538, compared to the 800-900 done by Newspoll. Timeshift (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Westpoll's is usually in the low 400s. And LOL @ Bilby's "two-poll preferred" :) Orderinchaos 01:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the sample size - that's a small number for that type of poll, but I tend to prefer large samples anyway. To be honest, I'm generally more concerned about the methodology. Smaller samples sizes can be ok with a good methodology, but I'm not sure what methodology was used there. - Bilby (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"And just because a media outlet might be sensationalist, we have to judge on merit." This looks like original research to me.BorisG (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, and I mean this without any sarcasm or anything, but is there a consensus in Australian political articles that outlines which polls are acceptable, and which are not (Timeshift9 and Orderinchaos, this question is mainly directed at you, given you know this topic better than myself)? This is the first poll in a while to show support for the ALP weakening, and to show confidence in Rann being shaken. Obviously it is only one poll, and it needs to be taken with a grain of salt (is there a way to say this in the article?), but the fact that it shows confidence in Rann weakening is significant, and warrants inclusion.

There might be some confusion about why I'm trying to get this part in here. Orderinchaos, you said: ""1, therefore 2" is in fact WP:SYN; no evidence is presented either by the source or the poll that the two are linked." The sentence in question does not say that the alleged affair is the cause for this poll result, and nor was it my intention to imply that by adding it. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, the source does specifically say that this is after she delivered the lie detector results, but I agree that mentioning that could make this sentence implicitly POV. My aim here is not to link this poll to the alleged affair, it is simply to include the poll results themselves in the article. Accordingly, can I ask that the discussion here not be along the lines of "Should this poll be included?", and more along the lines of "How can we include this poll in a way that is NPOV and does not imply something that the source itself does not". -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The first poll in a while to show support for the ALP weakening? What do you call this? What you should be asking is, if Howard can win elections while consistently bouncing between 47% to 53% 2PP, and Labor has had a clear lead in every Newspoll since 2004 (the rogue for Jul-Sep 2008 excluded), are people prepared to kick a competent Labor government out and go back to the Brown/Olsen/Kerin revolving door days? Since the end of the Playmander electoral malapportionment, the Libs have won only 3 of the last 12 elections. When was the last time an SA Labor government had a triple-A economic rating and got booted out? But this is all off-topic debating, sparked in part by the fact that nobody bothers to contribute anything to the page of SA's Premier for the past 4 years, then they all suddenly come out of the woodwork - a bit WP:SOAPBOXy. But this is assuming bad faith so I retract that. Getting back to the topic at hand... "According to one leading poll watcher: “Newspoll is the most authoritative poll” we are regularly told — and while some, particularly other pollsters, may disagree, it’s certainly the poll that carries the largest media weight in Australia."[1]... Newspoll is the most regular, has proven to be reliable time and time again at election time, and polls a large sample size. Newspoll is what is used for polling data on all "next" election pages, state and federal, where polling has been added. It would be very disingenuous to link a swing in voter intention in any poll to Chantelois, considering that an Advertiser poll revealed extreme little interest. I believe the Advertiser poll questioning voters about Chantelois can be used here (and currently is), as the result is so lopsided and is about a specific question, rather than finely poised polling numbers. The Advertiser Chantelois poll was specifically about Chantelois, so there was no attempt to link a voter intention swing with a particular incident, which is very foolish to do. The question is, why do you feel that the Chantelois section would benefit from a poll on voter intention instead of a specific issue? Timeshift (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(People just might - don't forget the Carpenter Labor government in WA lost somewhat unexpectedly despite a credible performance.)

Pretty much agreed with TS. There are a few polling companies in Australia worth noting - Newspoll being chief amongst them, but also ACNielsen, Roy Morgan and Galaxy. Very few of these survey at state level (Newspoll is the only one that does so consistently), and the media polls are generally a joke as their methodology isn't particularly sound. It's the downside of living in a small state. Orderinchaos 11:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

WA Labor has also been far less successful than SA Labor in holding government since the end of the Playmander, probably due to the fact that WA (along with QLD) are more conservative-leaning states (and whether you agree on this point isn't the point so let's not debate that). I also think that if the WA Nats weren't there, the Libs wouldn't have had the numbers in parliament (the SA Nats can't be compared to the WA Nats apart from the renegadeness (sic)). Not to mention the fact Carpenter was never actually elected, and never experienced the same meteoric polling that Media Mike has/did. But yes, no election is unwinnable or unloseable. Timeshift (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't include the February Advertiser poll then the December poll should be removed as well. If you compare the two polls it show a significant decline in the womens vote. Purrum (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The biggest issue was the WP:SYN involved in linking a single issue in Chantelois, with a change in voter intention. The voter intention polling should not have been in the Chantelois section. This is unlike the poll reference there at the moment which specifically asks voters if Chantelois will influence their vote, a massive majority saying no. The other issue is the fact that a poll of 500 asking for voting intention, where a couple of % either way matters greatly, should not be used as a reference when we have a much more steady/reliable poll in Newspoll, whose sample size is almost double. What did one of The Advertiser polls have recently? A 14% 2PP away from Labor in rural areas but were still leading? And that poll that had Labor at something like 57/43 despite both metro and rural being lower than this? To use voting intention polls from The Advertiser cheapens wikipedia. And just to clarify - the contribution is disputed/contested, therefore WP:CONSENSUS (not majority opinion, but consensus) is required before it can be re-added. Timeshift (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Timeshift about the consensus: this section should not be re-added until there is some sort of consensus here. I would also point out that, while Timeshift is right when he says that consensus is not a majority opinion, it does not mean that it must only be added if everybody is happy. Requiring consensus does not entitle every involved editor to a veto.

I would also say to Timeshift that he should be careful about using phrases like "...sparked in part by the fact that nobody bothers to contribute anything to the page of SA's Premier for the past 4 years, then they all suddenly come out of the woodwork - a bit WP:SOAPBOXy." Remarks such as these could be seen as discouraging new contributors from taking part both in this discussion and in the article (and topic) more generally (see WP:OWN and WP:BITE). If we want to reach a consensus, it is important that this discussion remain civil so that users are not "scared away", thus tarnishing the consensus.

I feel that I haven't made myself clear, so I'm going to outline the issues I would like addressed:

1. Is there a consensus within Australian Political articles about which polls are reliable, and which are not? Specifically, is the Advertiser sufficiently reliable?
2. If there is no topic-wide consensus, should we reach a consensus for this article about what polls we include?
3. If, in the course of the answer to (2) above, we decided that Advertiser polls should be included, is this particular poll notable enought for inclusion?
4. If we decided that this poll is sufficiently notable, how do we add it with sufficent sensitivity to the possibility of implying things not necessarily implied by the source (which, I think, is what Orderinchaos and Timeshift mean by it being WP:SYNy).

I'm not sure whether there is a topic-wide consensus about polls (again, Timeshift and Orderinchaos, you guys know this topic quite well, do you know of any consensus?), but I think it would be a good idea to figure out whether there's a consensus on this here. Perhaps this would be better done in a new section, so if anyone agrees that this should be talked through, feel free to start a new section. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lear, the end point of the catch 22 is that you require people to support your changes. If changes are controversial and they are not supported by the community, they will not get through. That is the natural quality assurance method of wikipedia. Don't even attempt to spin it around the other way. This is policy. Yes I admit I can bite the newbies at times, though i cannot dissolve myself of blame, it's how cynical one can become after witnessing so many SOAPBOX attempts on various articles. However, can I say, I would MUCH prefer to be breaking a civility rule, than such basic fundamental rules as WP:CONSENSUS. IF you are purposely trying to circumvent policy, then please don't, simply based on seeing countless numbers banned from the encyclopedia for being purposeful mischief-makers who do not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. I miss the days of article-creation, the days where i created various very basic political articles, from leaders to elections and the rest. Now everything has an article with comparatively (to back then) more detail, except the extreme obscure. Now wikipedia just seems to be flooded with nothing more than clear-cut undisputed mischief-makers (this is a general issue, i'm not accusing you of it) and all one does is attempt to hold up the fort against the mischievous, the misunderstood, and the ignorant. Perhaps I need a wikiholiday... or maybe, tell you what. Rather than just acting like me at the moment and not shutting up, tell us presicely the wording you want seen in the article. I am but one user, Orderinchaos is but one wikipedia administrator (which gives him more knowledge/experience but no veto power per se). If we both disagree, and you get a couple supporting you (and no AGF but a note to everyone that wikipedia is ever more mindful of WP:SOCKPUPPETs), then that is not consensus. Nothing will change. That is good. The status quo must be maintained if something cannot be agreed to. This protects wikipedia from those with less-than-honest intentions. I stand by my service and my edits. Please take all of this as genuine honesty rather than incivility. Timeshift (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think all this is taking us way too far. Maybe question 1 is important, but I would say it has little relevance to the issue with this article. In my view, no poll results should be added to THIS section unless there is a clear link to the topic of the section (allegations about the affair). It is amazing that the minor discussion about whether to include a poll result and quote a sequence of events that a source mentions has led to argument about the result of the future election, credit ratings, historical exercises about state elections, comparisons with WA, etc. Let's stay on topic here.BorisG (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, BorisG, that's fair enough. I can absolutely understand not wanting to put this quote in this section, as I can see how it could make it NPOV. The reason I asked question (1) is that there seemed to be an implication that only Newspoll was acceptable, and I just wanted to know whether this was a topic-wide consensus. In the absence of anyone answering that question, I'm going to assume that this is not a topic of consensus.

What I would ideally want here, seeing as Timeshift is asking, is for there to be some sort of discussion of how we can include this without it appearing biased. If you don't accept my premise and believe it shouldn't be here at all (which, I suppose, is the view of Timeshift and Orderinchaos), then that's fine: register those concerns. If anybody does accept the premise that it should be here, then we need to determine how to add it without implying anything the source does not.

My position (as I stated in the very first post of this discussion) is that the phrase "A poll conducted by the same newspaper in February 2010 had revealed that his trustworthy rate with the public had dropped way below the opposition leader Isobel Redmond.", or something substantially similar, should be added where it was initially added (in the section about the affair). I would be happy for it to be added to the Premier section, provided that a mention of the fact that the poll came in the wake of the lie detector thing is also included.

My reason for this is that it is from a reliable source, and does not constitute misrepresenting the source since, as I pointed out in my first post, the source itself draws the link to the affair.

Please respond to my reason, as I feel that would help keep the discussion on topic. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all WP:SYNd out. I'm bowing out of this, knowing that the page will be safe from SYN without consensus to say otherwise. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the proposed wording, and generally I'm inclined to say that an Advertiser poll is of questionable value. In relation to the wording, as stated in The Advertiser this was the first time that "trustworthiness" was included in the poll questions. Given that, the only statement that can be made is that Rann polled below Redmond - any comparison outside of this, such as the proposed "had dropped way below the opposition leader", is incorrect, as that statement can only be made if there was prior data to compare it to. The mention of coming in the wake of the lie detector remains problematic as well - it does, but mentioning them together suggests that the two are connected. The Advertiser was, in a sense, suggesting that connection, but there's no reliable data with which to draw it.

The difficulty with poll data is that there's only one question that matters - who will you vote for, two-party preferred. Everything else needs to be seen in light of that and taken as a whole. In general I feel that pulling out one bit, other than the core one above, tends to become a problem, as it loses its relationship to the other parts. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I just think this poll is not significant enough to be mentioned in any section. Otherwise to be consistent you have to mention hundreds of polls throughout Rann's career. But I don't have a strong opinion on this. Why don't we just wait for the next Newspoll, or, better still, the election, which isn't far away? However, if you feel this is important, you can add it in an appropriate section, but then, don't mention lie detector at all. That's my opinion anyway.BorisG (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be a pretty broad consensus against this. I still think it should be in there, and the fact that a reliable source has said it was after (but not necessarily because of) the lie detector bit makes me think it would be perfectly okay to put it in there. However, though I disagree, I respect the consensus. At the risk of kicking off a whole new debate, can I just ask whether anyone else thinks that, in the light of this consensus, the following sentence should be included?

“ Polling was conducted by The Advertiser in December 2009 with answers to questions revealing little voter interest in the allegations. ”

It's currently sitting there in it's own one-line paragraph. Thoughts? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that you support an Advertiser poll in the Chantelois section for voting intention which violates WP:SYN, yet you don't support an Advertiser poll in the Chantelois section that actually completely 100% directly asks voters - will it affect your vote? Overwhelming no. Yeah, probably best to leave that little pearler out, hey? Talk about a contradiction... Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, as I have pointed out earlier, I do not believe it violates WP:SYN. As I understand it, a sythesis requires, by definition, more than one source. Seeing as there is one source, I fail to see how I can be synthesising information from more than one source. Secondly, I think you misunderstand my position. I would like both polls to be there, I'm just making sure that the consensus just reached does not disqualify the one already there. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You continue to fail in your understanding of WP:SYN. Luckily others are not so unfortunate. Timeshift (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift, who are you bullying other editors? I am not a particular supporter of that particular quote, but quoting a reliable source is not WP:SYN. If anything, your questioning the relaibility of a reliable source is WP:OR. As is your analysis of Rann's electoral chances above.BorisG (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bullying. Linking the Chantelois allegations to a swing in voter intention polling is WP:SYN, me and others above already went through this, including an admin. I'm not going around in circles, I have better things to do. Timeshift (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, guys, I must say I strongly object to Timeshift's arrogant discussion style, but this issue at hand is so minor, that I suggest we put it to rest until another poll (more universally accepted like Newspoll) comes around. As Timeshift said rightly, there are better things to do.BorisG (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship(s)?

1953 - Born in UK. 1962 - Emigrated to NZ. 1977 - Moved to Oz. The infobox gives his "Nationality" as "Australian".
However, I'm unable to find anything else (anywhere) that mentions his nationalit(y)(ies) and/or his citizenship(s).
Can anybody supply any reliable "supporting references" that mention anything useful on the topic? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Archived to Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Citizenship(s)?

This has this:

“ Mr Rann was born in Sidcup, Kent, in 1953. His father an electrician who fought at El Alamein.

His mother worked in an armaments factory during World War II, making parts for Spitfires.

In 1962, his family left London for New Zealand.

He was the first in his family to go on to higher education, and he completed a Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts (Honours) in Political Studies at Auckland University. He was editor of the student newspaper and prominent in the New Zealand campaign against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

After graduating, he became a political journalist for the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation, before moving to South Australia in 1977 to become a press secretary, speech writer and adviser to three South Australian Labor Premiers, including the late Don Dunstan.

”

It's on a government website though, so it may not qualify as reliable (not independant). The Punch has pretty much the same bio. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But, like the wikipage, it doesn't say anything about his citizenship(s). Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This article deals with his Kiwi citizenship, though it's a bit old now... -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, well! It seems you've struck gold. Well done!
www.nzherald.co.nz, 4 Dec 2004
He has citizenship of both countries - unique for a politician in a country that in every other state Parliament demands exclusively Australian devotion.
and
"As a Kiwi Australian, or an Australian Kiwi, I'm trying to put South Australia on New Zealand's radar, and vice-versa," Rann said.

and particularly:

He has never surrendered his New Zealand passport. There have been other Kiwi-born Premiers and politicians - Queensland's Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and New South Wales' Premier John Fahey among them - but most have renounced transtasman citizenship. No federal MP can have dual nationality.

"There was an attempt, a miserable attempt, a couple of years ago [to outlaw dual nationality in SA], which was clearly aimed at me," Rann said.

"The legislation passed the Lower House but failed in the Upper House. I think people could see it was just a trick to embarrass me, because I was refusing to give up my New Zealand citizenship."

Great stuff. Very useful.

Now, I wonder about his UK citizenship status?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Also interesting:
His Government kept Mitsubishi in South Australia, securing a A$600 million ($649) investment for a new-model production line that Rann will open. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

UK citizenship?

Lear's Fool has identified that Rann holds dual Australian and New Zealand citizenship.[[2]

Can anyone determine anything about the status of Rann's UK citizenship? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Early Life section

There seems to be a bit of a problem with this section (see [3], [4], [5]). I think it stems from the fact that pretty much the entire section seems to be referenced by "Mike Rann: A fortunate 'king of spin", but it is (was after my edit) only referenced with a footnote at the end.

Archived to Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Early Life section

I've put a footnote from this source next to the line "After university, Rann was a political journalist for the now defunct New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation, where it was reported that he struggled with being an objective reporter.", as you can see it when you type in "objective" to the search thing on google books here.

I feel the section would be better if each of the facts in this section were provided with inline references, rather than just one at the end. However, even though the full essay is not available online, I still feel it should be used as a source (see WP:OFFLINE, WP:SOURCEACCESS). Maybe we should find what we can from the google books preview, put inline refs for that, and then someone can try and get it from a library and fill in the rest. Thoughts? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lear's Fool & Timeshift seem to be addressing subjects other than the ones I am.

I made the following changes (in bold), for the following reasons:

• It was reported that he struggled with being an objective reporter. - That's a pretty damning and POV "report". Who made it? If you can't tell me who made it, and the context in which it was made, then remove it from the article.
• position with then Premier - Don Dunstan is NOT the premier. However, he was the premier then.
• One commentator reports that - again, if you can't tell me who made it, and the context in which it was made, then remove it from the article.
• Original: Rann wrote speeches on and assisted in policy development for civil liberties, land, gay and women's rights, and opposition to uranium mining, revealing a vein of idealism, his early predilection was left of centre
  • Bad grammar and unclear.
  • Changed version: Rann wrote speeches on, and assisted in policy development for, civil liberties, Aboriginal land rights, land rights for whom? Clarify please. gay and women's rights, and opposition to uranium mining. Revealing a vein of idealism, his early predilection was left of centre.

OK? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha! Lear's Fool's New Zealand Herald article tells us that it's Aboriginal land rights. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift has posted on my talk page:
Thanks For putting unsightly tags on Rann's page that seem WP:POINTy if not anything else. Timeshift (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've responded:
LOL!
Thank you for being more concerned about appearances and your own POV than about facts, accuracy and unsubstantiated claims. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm bemused by Timeshift's course of action.

• Why did he make the posting on my talk page and not here?
• Why has he not addressed the points I raised?
• Why does he consider it is "POINTy" to be concerned that personal opinions about Rann are being voiced in the article without attribution to who made them or the circumstances in which they are made?
• If he doesn't like it, why doesn't he do something about it? Shooting the messenger has never been an effective method of solving any problem related to the message itself.

If Timeshift is unwilling or unable to provide the necessary information, I'm quite willing to remove the unattributed claims - that would remove the "unsightly tags" and no doubt return Timeshift to a state of happiness. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that what is there is factual, accurate, and substantiated. It was taken out of the source used. Don't dare accuse me of not caring about these things. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Timeshift, given that information, I will rewrite the sections in question into an acceptable form. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

This page needs archiving, but we should try to only archive the discussions that have definitely finished. Perhaps we can archive everything except the "Early Life" section? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I archived the sections that had completed discussion, and left those that didn't.

I don't see any need for any further discussion on "Early life" - the matter appears resolved.

Citizenship, however, is still open.

I suggest you just undo your reverts and leave things as they were. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you, perhaps, take more care with your reversions?

You have removed some of my additions.

In fact, why don't you just revert back to my last edit? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No action required - I've fixed it. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of name

Ok. Are we going to include her name or not? There seems to be an ongoing edit war. Given that she publicly came forward I'm confused by claims that this constitutes a BLP problem. Simply claiming that that is "tabloidy" isn't an argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived to Talk:Mike Rann/Archive2#Inclusion of name - 14 Feb 2010

Now that Rann made a televised apology to Ms Chantelois the article should include names. Purrum (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. - BorisG (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. There is no dispute as to who the woman is. And calling her 'the lady' sound olde English tbh --Ytekcor (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

UK citizenship?

Lear's Fool has identified that Rann holds dual Australian and New Zealand citizenship.[6]

Can anyone determine anything about the status of Rann's UK citizenship? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sasha Carruozzo, noteable?

I came across this and wondered, even regardless of the article, is Sasha noteable as the wife of the leader of a government? If all the PMs wives get an article, I don't see why Premiers' wives shouldn't. Timeshift (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Shakey factional support

I'm uncomfortable putting in speculation about a caucus move against Rann 'till something a little more solid comes out in the media. One would assume that MPs (especially in the Left) are always sounding out the possibility of a Weatherill move. Can we at least wait until the ABC picks something up? That would be better than a single, speculative Advertiser source.  -- Lear's Fool 04:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I retract, for now. It's definately on though. I'm most surprised though that the numbers are being counted for Jay - unthinkable a short time ago. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have been Kouts if it weren't for the fines, but I digress.  -- Lear's Fool 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

At one stage it would have been Foley, lol Timeshift (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Leadership etc.

I've added what I can from the ABC, but AdelaideNow has more details regarding the factional negotiations and the like. I'm a little wary of adding details about factional stuff when they're only referenced to AdelaideNow, and I'm not sure whether we really need to say exactly who informed Rann of the decision. What do others think?  -- Lear's Fool 08:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty solid. I've made a few edits. I hope others don't find issue with it. Rann's reign is over. Timeshift (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Long live the king...  -- Lear's Fool 10:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

17 years as an Australian major party parliamentary leader. A stellar innings by anyone's standards. In regards to 4 refs being used, I think it's perfectly reasonable considering it is contentious and potentially disputable. By using ABC, the 'tiser, the oz, and SMH, we've covered News Ltd, the ABC, and Fairfax, just to make sure that people realise that this isn't a particular media outlet attempting to push an issue and that it is real. I included the article from the oz as it specifies the date he has reportedly been given. With four overall sources, we are not pushing the limits IMHO. On a side note... coincidence? Timeshift (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It must be some sort of record for an unaligned ALP leader, perhaps worth a mention?

My point with the news sources is that this was obviously a story broken by the ABC and the Advertiser (or leaked to those two publications). It hasn't been officially announced that he's been asked to go, it's been reported, and only reported by those two publications. The rest are just reporting what the ABC and 'tiser have uncovered. In light of that, I think we should preface this paragraph with "The ABC and Advertiser reported" (or something similar) rather than "Several outlets reported". Regarding the strength of the sourcing, I don't think anyone could in good faith refute something reported by both the ABC and the 'tiser. 4 sources just seems like overkill.  -- Lear's Fool 10:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A bit of research and cites would be needed to mention something like that, but as far as SA goes, Rann is the longest serving major party leader apart from Playford (I still tend not to count him due to the Playmander... one can say he would have been safe under a democratic system until X election, but when the scales are tipped so far in favour of one, people will tend to vote for stability, but, I digress). Ok, I understand that you prefer to mention who broke the story, so i've changed that, but I do feel rather strongly about keeping the four varied sources. Is this ok? Timeshift (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me.  -- Lear's Fool 11:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also added what I consider to be a balanced editorial from the 'tiser. I havent used the editorial to justify any text, it simply is there to assist the reader in getting a fuller picture. Is anyone against this for the time being? Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am. References aren't for giving users "further reading", and it's not an encyclopaedia's job to direct people to interesting editorials unless the editorials themselves are notable. Unless this editorial somehow becomes part of the coverage, I don't think we should have it there.  -- Lear's Fool 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ellis

This is a joke, right? This is an opinion piece written by a former speech writer of Rann's that doesn't even give the illusion of impartiality. This is an encyclopaedia: we don't include "all views", we include perspectives from reliable sources in accordance with due weight. We don't cite laudatory blog posts from long-term friends. This isn't even close to being neutral.  -- Lear's Fool 12:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ellis is a widely published Labor historian and was Rann's speechwriter for 13 years. If you take issue, can you assist in rewording it then? Summaries of achievements of Premiers are not very common, Ellis outlines them very well. Rather than play the man, can I ask, what about his ball do you disagree with? What is it that was added that is incorrect? If you do not like the wording then can you assist? This article sorely lacks a wrapup of this Premier's achievements. I've made some edits. Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You might call him a widely published Labor historian, I might call him a polemicist who has published some ... shall we say "widely discredited" theses. We do want a "wrap-up" of Rann's premiership, but we need it from a source that's reliable and neutral, one that mentions his mistakes as well as his successes. Ellis won't do that, because he's a pro-ALP polemicist and personal friend of Rann. The reality is that we may have to wait a bit for a decent retrospective on his premiership (he is still premier after all). I'll have a bit of a look for a while and see what I can find (I may even send an e-mail to Clem Macintyre, he's usually quite helpful).  -- Lear's Fool 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Timeshift, can you please remove this paragraph until there's some sort of agreement here? This source clearly doesn't meet our reliablity requirements, and I've no intention of reverting again.  -- Lear's Fool 12:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a dubious inline tag. Why is it not considered appropriate to add a source from Rann's 13-year speechwriter, disclosing it as coming from him? Normally I agree with adding reliable sources, but in this context, it's not as black and white clear cut. Do you disagree with anything added? I could understand if I were citing sections with Ellis that weren't true. There's always gray areas, and as far as Rann's achievements go, Rann's speechwriter is one of the far more informed and aware sources we could find. Of course, if we can find neutral sources to back it all up, we should use them, but until that time, I fail to see what the big stink is. Timeshift (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why it's not appropriate: it's not for me (or you) to outline what in particular is wrong or right in what he's saying. You've added a biased, laudatory paragraph from a blog post written by a personal friend of the subject of this article: that alone requires its removal.  -- Lear's Fool 12:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So that means we cannot have any views of any speechwriters for any government leaders on wikipedia as part of a balanced article? REALLY? Timeshift (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that? It means that this piece by Bob Ellis is not a reliable source for information on Mike Rann.  -- Lear's Fool 13:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. Each circumstance must be taken on its merits, and in this case, I don't see how we're adding Ellis' opinion. I don't think we'll have a lot of luck finding a cite with a summary like that, and the article would be worse off without it. Also, are you saying that Bob Ellis is universally disallowed from any use on any article on wikipedia and that none of his articles should be merit-considered? That seems pretty unfair, considering he's the basically the unofficial Labor historian. Timeshift (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're agreeing to disagree, then you're gonna have to remove it until you can find someone to agree with you.  -- Lear's Fool 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But you say the text isn't the problem, the reference source is. Thus I added a temporary dubious tag. Why would you want to see text removed that we agree is needed? Timeshift (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Go back and read what I wrote: the text is a problem, it's biased and it comes from a biased source. This is a disputed change, Timeshift, and as you well know you should remove it until you have consensus for it. I'm going to bed. If it's still there in the morning I'll consider taking this to a relevant noticeboard.  -- Lear's Fool 14:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But you agree that we need a section like that, and you can't name a bit of the text that isn't true. So i've tagged it as dubious. Would it be better to remove the cite and tag it uncited until someone is able to find a better source? I still don't agree with your theory that Bob Ellis has no place at all on wikipedia. He's the Labor historian, and as such, I don't see why nothing on wikipedia at all can quote him, regardless of the particular situation. Wikipedia policies don't say that just because a source is close to the article that it cannot be used, wikipedia encourages all reasonable non-fringe views to be included. Your simple objection is that the ref is by Bob Ellis and that instantly makes it not worthy of use. As Rann's 13-year speechwriter and famous Labor historian, you can't categorically say he cannot be used as a ref without explaining the particular concern. I'm trying to compromise. I've edited the text, i've added a dubious tag. Why can't you help to find some cites? To simply delete without replacement just seems a little academically lazy and not in the best interests of the article, which sorely needs an achievements section. We already have quite a bit on Rann's downsides. Timeshift (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Disputed reversion

I made the following insertions today, which were immediately reverted by User:Timeshift9. I believe they are worthy of some further discussion, considering the additions were cited, and in my opinion, relevant to Mike Rann's post-parliamentary career and personal life respectively.

Post-parliamentary career

He assumed the position in December 2012. Rann earns between $245,415 and $276,298 a year from the Federal Government for his work as High Commissioner while also accruing $208,000 a year from a State Parliamentary superannuation scheme. Independent senator Nick Xenophon commented that it was “a bit rich that former federal MPs have their pension cut if they take a diplomatic post but ex-state MPs don’t’’.

If it would be more appropriate to describe the different rules for Federal vs. State MPs without reference to Xenophon, I'm fine with that. I believe this financial disclosure to be significant, as the former State premier is a beneficiary of South Australian tax payers' support (via pension/super scheme) through what the article describes as a 'loophole'.

Personal life

After assuming his position as Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom in December 2012, Rann and his wife Sasha Carruozzo enjoy free accommodation in Stokes Lodge, Kensington; a provided $30 million five-bedroom residence near London's Buckingham Palace.

Both insertions were cited, yet both were reverted without appropriate discussion in my opinion. I would appreciate some additional perspectives on this. Danimations (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why we would cherry pick one job they've done and nominate the pay, biggest example we don't indicate the salary of a Premier on their bio page, as it should be. What Xenophon thinks about a party leader is bumfluff which place is not this or other parliamentarian biographies. Your additions also lack references and relevance on something so esoteric and specific. Very highly questionable. If you're trying to base an addition to this article from your single source, note we are not a news service. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And your reason for reversion of the addition of Stoke Lodge, Kensington living circumstances to the 'Personal Life' section? Danimations (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to a bio of the person? Do other High Commissioners get similar benefits and do we detail them on their bios? Where's the relevance, ongoing or otherwise, apart from a slow news day? I could cite that the sky looks blue and it's true but that doesn't mean it's automatically relevant to an article, does it? Plus it just makes it worse when it's added with the former section... Timeshift (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant in my opinion, as it illustrates the quality of life the former Premier is presently enjoying. I can't see how this is not relevant to a 'personal life' section, considering the paucity of information presently in this particular section. Could the latter section edit be kept and the former discarded? Perhaps the living conditions of other diplomats/politicians should also be added to their respective Wikipedia pages, where reliable citations are available? Danimations (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would dispute it is relevant unless it was well documented, over time, by WP:RS and is more than a news article from a few days ago. Timeshift (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

http://britain-australia.org.uk/events/event/2356/

http://www.gg.gov.au/events/governor-general-meets-prominent-uk-women

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/top-diplomat-john-dauth-rues-crude-debate/story-e6frg6nf-1226523016459#

http://www.taitmemorialtrust.org/PastEvents2014

http://www.theorderofaustralia.asn.au/downloads/MicrosoftWord-OAANewsletter091213_4_.pdf Danimations (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

A page citing Stokes Lodge without mentioning everything else is not a cite. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This cite describes the house at least, while the other links posted above (four out of five of them from memory) associate Rann and his wife with it. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27569109

Mass content move to Rann Government - and shrinking of affair section

I see that some new editors have been creating an exhaustive list for what Rann did in government. The new content looked really odd considering they were just inserted between paragraphs, and overall made the article quite unwieldy. The breadth of legislative coverage added warranted the creation of a Rann Government article - like Abbott Government etc. Please feel free to add what his government did to that article and keep this article free of legislative laundry lists. The issue that's been created with this content move is that the affair allegations section is too long for the article it's in. I'm not sure why 6 paragraphs are required. I've shrunk it. It could be argued that the allegations had an effect on the government itself so i'm happy to leave it in it's pre-cut form in the govt article. Please also feel free to add similar legislative content to the Jay Weatherill article so I can organise the creation of a Weatherill Government article. One more thing... i'm not sure why the apparent sockpuppetry was required (Simon Monty 76, Sandy Emillio, Bob thomas 1954, and 2 IPs) but thought it should be noted. Timeshift (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mike Rann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080427042147/http://www.news.com.au:80/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,18520429-910,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,18520429-910,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002044649/http://www.independentweekly.com.au:80/news/local/news/columns/when-panic-starts-to-build/1322817.aspx to http://www.independentweekly.com.au/news/local/news/columns/when-panic-starts-to-build/1322817.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)