Talk:Utegate

"Utegate" as name

The Australian Media appears to have settled on "Utegate" as the name of this incident, hence the creation of this page. See this Google News search.

Also please do not link to ute - that is a dismabiguation page.

Manning (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a bit of a silly name. What else is it being referred to? --Merbabu (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

'OzCar Affair': [1] 'Utegate' is bizarrely common though. Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When I created the page the choice was between "OzCar Affair" and "Utegate". I did a survey of Google News to decide. Utegate was leading by about 10 to 1, with only ABC News trying to use OzCar Affair. Manning (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant links

Just a dumping ground for relevant links as I find them. Manning (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Utegate: police chief to shed light on fake email
• Rudd swerves on car scandal
• Utegate: Rudd orders full investigation
• Utegate explained

Even though I don't think this is really worth a separate article, here are some links I've collected:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

btw careful with Crikey refs, it ain't quite a WP:RS yet. --Surturz (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on Crikey, I didn't use it in the main article. But the overview was a useful resource though for getting my thoughts together. As far as Noteworthy, it's dominated news headlines for nearly three weeks now and has received worldwide coverage. It could yet lead to changes in party leadership... or the whole thing might vanish into irrelevant nothingness. We shall see. Manning (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Uncertainties

Here are some things I'm not entirely certain about:

• As far as I know, OzCar does not yet actually exist although it has been mooted.
• What date did Malcolm Turnball actually accuse the PM of wrongdoing? I've only written "June 2009" for the moment. June 4, 2009.

There is a LOT more to do - I've only been able to get it started so far. Manning (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up with the ins and outs, and the article *better* than it was, but I think the article still seems to imply that the issue hinges on the e-mail and is now dead because the e-mail was forged. What are the specific allegations against Swan and when were they made? The article needs to cover this better - although it is a lot more encompassing than this version. --Merbabu (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this really worth an article?

Is this really worth an article? --Surturz (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, yes. How is it not? Manning (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Because we're yet to see where this leads. The case against Rudd turned to dust, the case against Swan could also turn to dust. I think we should have seen where it went and if it had any legs before the article was created, but now it's here I don't particularly think removing it is a priority - as long as it is kept updated and accurate. Timeshift (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh well I agree completely, except that for events such as this I think it is better for us to be involved than not. I created this article because someone at work searched WP for a Utegate overview and found nothing. (Nothing annoys me more than WP coming up short.) This event could still go somewhere but I'll speedy it myself if this drifts off into nothingness. Manning (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer a section in Rudd Government with a "utegate" redirect. I don't think this issue as it stands requires more than a couple of paragraphs at most. That said, if it somehow drags on for months (doubtful, both sides will now want this to die as an issue) then perhaps a separate article would be warranted. --Surturz (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning, but would it not also need to be included under Malcolm Turnbull? I don't see it neatly sliding into a single alternative article.Manning (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see this neatly sticking to any particular person at the moment. Leave the article where it stands and revise it when they complete their investigation, if necessary. Booksacool1 (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If it hadn't been for the forged emails, I'd have said delete; the thing wasn't getting any traction and wasn't going to be remembered even next month. With today's headlines, though, that could well change. Rebecca (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is a bit weird. If the email had been genuine, it wouldn't deserve an article, but because the emails were forged the topic DOES deserve an article? I would have said the other way around. This seems to be a storm in a teacup. IMO, for the issue to be particularly notable either Rudd has to be found to be guilty of the charge, or Turnbull has to be found to have had a role in forging the email. A hasty accusation based on incorrect data seems like a big deal now, but it won't be in a year's time. If the issue has a lasting negative effect on Turnbull's leadership then perhaps it might deserve a passing mention in his article. OTOH I would now agree that the issue is no longer Rudd-specific nor even Rudd Govt specific, which would imply a separate article (if it is worth covering at all). --Surturz (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

MHS in SA is on his last legs due to Dodgygate, which is quite similar to Turnbull in Utegate... Timeshift (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Utegate" is a partisan title

I object to the expression "utegate" being used as the title for this article. I don't deny that it has media currency, but it is a partisan, anti-Labor expression, coined by anti-Labor media outlets for just that reason. It suggests, falsely, that there was something improper about the campaign donation of the ute to Kevin Rudd. The donation was legal and fully declared. and Grant received no benefit in return for it. The "scandal" began with Godwin Grech's testimony on Friday, and the focus of the matter is now Grech, the forged email and the relationship between Grech and Turnbull. If I created an article called Turnbullgate no doubt it would be deleted. I suggest a more neutral title would be OzCar affair. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely disagree. I do not see "Utegate" as being remotely Anti-Labor, and "Turnballgate" would get deleted not for its partisanship but for its lack of currency. If the term "Utegate" survives (which is not guaranteed) I think it will be regarded as an anti-Liberal reference, if anything. Anyway, the term is by far the dominant term being used in the media, based on Google News searches (granted Google is not the Holy Grail of information, but its the best guide we have at this time). That's the only reason for the title. Manning (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "utegate" logically suggests that the centre of the scandal (which the suffix -gate denotes) is the ute. But this is absurd. There is nothing remotely scandalous about the donation of the ute, which was legal and declared. If it had been shown that Grant had recieved some favour in exchange for the donation, that might have justified the term, but this was not shown to be the case. The scandal, if there is one, is about the forged email and Turnbull's relationship with Grech. "Grechgate" mikght be the most accurate term. I take your point about currency, but that can't be the only consideration. We can't use titles which suggest that the article is taking sides in the debate. An article on the AWB matter called Wheat for Weapons Scandal, for example, could have been justified on grounds of currency, but it was a partisan term coined by Rudd. I note your comments below, and I will wait and see what others say.

We can and do use terms that reflect mainstream currency, that is and always has been our chief guide on these matters. Even when a term might seem blatantly unfair - qv. Sports rorts affair. If we use any other benchmark as our guide, we are violating neutrality because we are making a judgement of some kind. It is not Wikipedia's role to adjudicate on why or how things get named. The big naming disputes that have arisen on Wikipedia occurred when there were two competing terms in mainstream usage to choose from (qv. Aluminium), and not whether or not the term was logical or appropriate. As an example of a nonsense name which is nonetheless in general usage, refer to Fermat's Last Theorem which was not even a theorem, nor was it his last. Manning (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Utegate - possible name change

The candidate names for this article are "Utegate" and OzCar Affair". On Monday when I scanned the papers and web resources "Utegate" was the clear leader. However today (Wed) the alternative title "OzCar Affair" seems to be gaining more traction. I shall continue to monitor and will advocate for a name change if I think it becomes necessary. Non-Australian news sources are using "Utegate" almost exclusively. ABC has used "Ozcar Affair" consistently, and now some parts of News Limited seems to have switched to using that term. Fairfax remains the chief local advocate for "Utegate". Manning (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And naturally, ten minutes after I wrote the above comment, I find that the Sydney Morning Herald (Fairfax) seems to have also moved to using "OzCar Affair". [9] Manning (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"OzCar affair" is the name being used in every Australian media article published in the last 24 hours, so a name change seems warranted. Manning (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Rebecca (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I think Utegate is a ludicrous name (there was a time when the -gate suffix was for scandals involving a secretly taped conversation, not just any old scandal) we unfortunately should stick with the most commonly used term. I hope OzCar Affair wins! Format (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Apparently it did. Great. Format (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sensible handling of this matter. I wrote an article called Godwin Grech which was deleted. Can I retrieve the text to use in this article? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You should ask the deleting admin - it shouldn't be a problem, as long as there is no WP:BLP issues. You can ask them to post it on your talk page, or similar. --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already retrieved it - the full text is on your talk page. Manning (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have used some of my Grech article to expand this article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Why must peoople use this horrible method of embedding their references in the text? It maked editing almost impossible. There is a duplicated sentence in the article but I can't see how to delete it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear... to fully answer that question would require me to explain 4 years of Wikipolitics, endless bitter disputes and tears of anguish. If it helps, cutting and pasting the original text into Notepad or similar is often useful. I had a quick scan and did not see the offending sentence - let me know and I'll look at it. Manning (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP MOS says the end of the sentence is the correct place for inline cites as per MOS:PAIC. You can also put them after a comma, but after the full-stop is the best place IMHO. --Surturz (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This issue really gets my goat. It should be sentence, full stop/comma, reference, space, new sentence. The amount of different combinations is very annoying. Reference, full stop/comma annoys me. Full stop/comma, reference, another full stop/comma annoys me even more. Timeshift (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry - I found and fixed it, and reformatted the references Manning (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing referenced text.

diff1, diff2 diff3 appear to remove WP:V text. If the info is indeed 'incorrect', please establish that on the talk page before removing the text. --Surturz (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No real need to discuss it - the information was obviously incorrect in context, as simple examination would have shown. It said these events occurred on June 4 and not the actual date of June 19 (which the references themselves established). Most of it has been reinserted on the correct date except where it duplicated previously referenced items. There is one section (concerning the emails tabled by Swan) which needs to be reinserted on the correct date. I've got it set aside and just have not had time to put it back in yet. Manning (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There certainly is a need to discuss it if you are going to remove WP:V material. Just because it was in the wrong place does not mean it should have been removed; the material should have been moved to the correct place, or left alone. I have added the material back to the article, in the correct place (19 June). --Surturz (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I had already done that. I am not certain what point you are trying to make here. Incorrect information MUST be removed at all times, and there are NO cases where "leaving it in" is acceptable. Manning (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't move the text to the correct place, you removed it See here - no mention of mobile phone numbers to Ford Credit, or faxes to Swan's home. The text was not incorrect, it was merely in the wrong place (the preceding sentence implied the wrong chronology). That said, these facts are in the text now, and in a much better form due to your efforts, so I will thank you and drop the complaint stop complaining and thank you instead. Thank you :-) --Surturz (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Had I not been interrupted for as long as I was this problem would never have arisen anyway - when I excised the material I had every intention of restoring it immediately. But... oh well, you know. Manning (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah - warm and fuzzy hugs all 'round. ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Enquiry vs. Inquiry

"[I]nquiry should be used in relation to a formal inquest, and enquiry to the act of questioning"[10]. Can we adopt this? --Surturz (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I realised that I was quite confused on this point myself and had made a note to go and research it. Manning (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It does depend on culture, but as this is an article on Australians, we should adopt the Australian convention. --Surturz (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I just wasn't entirely sure what the convention was :) Manning (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Information still absent

I've just done a major clean up and am happy with the article up until the end of the "Senate Inquiry" section. The final section is still poor and I hate the heading "Investigation". (Even though I created it)

Some things that (possibly) merit addressing:

• Questions (accusations?) over the Turnbull/Grech relationship ABC News article, Another ABC article
• Swan acknowledging he spoke to Grant on the phone, refusing to say if he spoke to any other car dealer ABC News article
• OzCar legislation passed The Australian article
• Abetz and Turnbull apparently met with Grech prior to Senate hearing Telegraph
• Senate blocks further investigation of Grech testimony Brisbane Times article

Manning (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Grant didn't end up getting any assistance from OzCar is also well worth mentioning. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the press have made a big deal of it, but why exactly is it a big deal if Grech and Turnbull have had contact before? Is there a difference between a whistle blower going to the opposition, rather than the press? --Surturz (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If there was "a conspiracy to falsify evidence and testimony" then it would be huge - probably criminal. However the odds of proving that seem very small, so I'm guessing it means nothing ultimately.Manning (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The media discussion of the meeting between Grech and Turnbull (the ABC claimed last night that it could confirm this had taken place after it was reported in the News Ltd papers) also includes discussion of Turnbull's judgement: it's been reported that he was shown a copy of the email in the meeting but wasn't allowed to keep a copy and acted without verifying that the email was legit. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? No, really, so what? It's not like he forged the email himself. Making a hasty accusation in parliament based on evidence that turned out to be faulty is embarrassing, but it is hardly immoral or illegal. Talking to Grech before the event is hardly a big deal either - it's bizarre that the papers are criticising Turnbull for talking to a whistle-blower when so many of their stories quote unnamed "Liberal sources", "Senior Government ministers" etc. I wonder if it is just professional jealousy that Grech didn't go to the press and went to the Libs instead. --Surturz (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the government's heading down the line of suggesting that it reflects badly on his credit because he was the one who went public with the false claims without having verified them, as with MHS in SA - where if it'd been the media who'd done it they'd be the ones with egg on their faces and not Turnbull. Rebecca (talk)

It's a violation of the Public Service Act for a public servant to give information to any unauthorised person. The person receiving the information could be charged with being an accomplice to that illegal act, or even with procuring it, which is more serious. Turnbull's line that "everyone does it" is not a legal defence. If Grech reveals all to avoid prosecution, Turnbull could be in serious trouble. It's not likely he would be charged, but it's not something that can just be laughed off. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have weeded out a lot of redundant phraseology. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion Polls

Why, oh why, does every auspol article end up with opinion polls in them? Just because they have numbers in them, doesn't make them factual or encyclopedic. --Surturz (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course reliable opinion polls are allowed on wikipedia. In this case, they show whether the scandal was a success or failure for the opposition - and in this case, it was the biggest failure in 25 years of Newspoll polling. What an amazing change in satisfaction/dissatisfaction numbers for Turnbull. Just... wow. Newspoll also contained a specific question on the OzCar affair which did not bode well for Turnbull. Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Surturz - With regard to your deletion of [11]. At first glance I do not find the material objectionable, and it was duly verified. Hence I find this behaviour inconsistent with your earlier request for discussion prior to removal [12]. If however there is actually a community consensus regarding opinion polls I am not aware of, I would be most grateful if you would point me in that direction. Manning (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright, if you are going to try and legitimise that awful addition... OzCar formed no part of the polling, the polls quoted did not ask any questions to do with the OzCar affair. The article referenced was an opinion piece with a journalist's interpretation of the polling. The inserted text was not WP:V and therefore its removal is justified. The text as a whole violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH. The sentence "According to the Fairfax polling, Peter Costello received 37 per cent support, Joe Hockey 21 per cent, Turnbull 18 per cent and Tony Abbott, 10 per cent support." has absolutely not relevance to the article. The reference to historical records is irrelevant too. To say that the poll results are solely the result of the OzCar affair, and do not take into account other factors such as Costello resigning, the effects of the stimulus packages and the reporting of recent economic data is ludicrous. An opinion poll that specifically polled about an aspect of the OzCar controversy may have a place in this article, however, a WP:POV interpretation of a general poll has no place in this article. --Surturz (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. All of your points seem quite reasonable. There IS certainly room to debate the value of including the opinion poll results and I am for the moment inclined to agree with you. Manning (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored a condensed version of the opinion polls section. Please do not delete it again without discussion. The article needs a section on "role of the Murdoch press", but thet will probably have to wait until we see the AFP report. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have removed this addition as per above. --Surturz (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion Poll debate

OK I don't want to see an edit war emerge here. After Surturz clarified the reasoning for removal of the Opinion Poll information I find myself in agreement. Any information in this article must be tangibly and demonstrably related to the OzCar affair, including opinion polls. Manning (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not synth when you have many WP:RS directly blaming the OzCar affair for all three polls released on the same day (with one asking about OzCar, and a record slump in an approval rating). If we made the connection ourselves it would be synth. Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If the WP:RS clearly link the results to the OzCar affair then they are legitimate. The material excised by Surturz did not seem to make that assertion (apologies if I missed it however). It is obviously policy that "information and associated references must be clearly related to the article topic". Perhaps we can examine and edit the material on this page so as achieve a version we are all happy with? Manning (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The text could be editted or it could be kept the same, the only thing that's really needed is a few of the many many WP:RS out there that blame the affair for the polling added to that section. Only a fool would say the affair isn't the cause of the bad polling - even coalition MPs blame it for the bad polling... Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WP's criterion for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I am sure OzCar had a big effect on polling, but to assert that it was the only factor is WP:OR. If you know of other WP:RS, please provide them. I won't revert again because I am at the limit of WP:3RR, but I think it better for article stability to leave the article as it was and establish WP:CONS for the proposed text here on the talk page first as per WP:BRD. --Surturz (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now supplied referenced quotations attributing the opinion poll results to the OzCar affair, and I have also added the specific questions in the polls about who had been telling the truth about OzCar. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't like the section, but the new text is much, much better. Opinions are attributed, and the text is much more WP:NPOV. Thank you. --Surturz (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be an opinion from a News Ltd paper or else it makes it look like only Fairfax came to the conclusion, when the conclusion was unanimous. Might be worth quoting a Liberal MP or Turnbull himself too. Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Surturz, thanks for that. Timeshift, yes there should. I'll try to find a Shanahan or Milne quote. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For brevity, I think we can remove the opinion poll commentary on the parties and focus on the leaders. I think a 3% shift is within the margin of error, and OzCar has been a personality based issue rather than party/policy based issue (despite the Grattan quote). e.g.

The week after the events in federal Parliament, several opinion polls appeared simultaneously, all showing a drop in Turnbull's approval rating, and a rise in Rudd's approval rating. According to Newspoll, published in The Australian, Turnbull's approval rating suffered the single biggest fall in the survey's 25-year history, while Rudd's prefered rating increased from 57 to 65 per cent. A Galaxy poll in News Limited newspapers also showed Turnbull's support falling.

Commentators attributed these poll results to the OzCar affair. "Malcolm Turnbull's darkest hours as Opposition Leader is upon him with a new poll showing his standing has been dealt a hammer blow by the OzCar affair," wrote Phillip Coorey, chief political correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald. "The Coalition and Malcolm Turnbull have received a devastating blow from the OzCar affair," said Michelle Grattan in The Age.

The polls also asked specific questions about the OzCar affair. According to Newspoll, voters, by a ratio of two to one, did not believe that Grant had received preferential treatment. Fifty-two percent said they did not believe Turnbull's claims, while only 24% said they thought they were true. Newspoll also showed a large drop in the number of voters who thought Turnbull trustworthy, and an increase in those who thought him arrogant.

Thoughts? --Surturz (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Surturz (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Role of media

Media Watch has had two episodes now questioning the role of News Limited's Steve Lewis, who foreshadowed the existence of the email (thought to be genuine at the time) in June 19th's Daily Telegraph. Is this worth researching for this article? --Surturz (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)