Talk:Sports rorts affair

Bias/lack of refs

Moved from my (Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)) talk page:

Hi timeshift, just wanted to know what the nature of your neutrality concern is with this article so I can address this. As to references I guess there must be something on the public record about it all but if you check the sequence of events they fall in this order, Whiteboard, Kelly, Canberra electorate, Act Labor Government followed by the QLD Labor Governement then Federal Labor. In the middle of all this the NSW libs lost power in a cliffhanger election just as the Goss govment did so there may be an indication that things where swinging in the balance at that time and then it swung dramaticily towards the coaltion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godianus the Finder (talk • contribs) 10:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse Timeshift9's marking of this article as unreferenced and not conforming to our neutral point of view policy. The article reads like a blog with more analysis than information, and there's no indication in any reliable academic sources that the NSW, QLD or Federal elections had anything to do with the particular situation (this sort of reasoning is referred to as synthesis, part of our policy on original research). All indications are that all three elections would have proceeded as they did without it - the State Liberals were deeply unpopular in NSW long before the election, Labor was having issues with inexperience following 32 years in opposition in Queensland and pretty much everybody except the diehards hated Keating by that stage and were by 1995 waiting for a viable alternative to arise on the conservative side of politics. Orderinchaos 14:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Timeshift (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Orderinchaos/Timeshift you have an alturnate spin on events....since you took the time to write them on the talk page why not do so on the article instead and imporve it. One of the things that article needs is relevant citations and references and some dates. I'm sure the parlrliamenty hansards records Kelly's responces to John Howards questions on this matter so thats a start. Thanks for your feedback and controbution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godianus the Finder (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to pick up on your comment "everybody except the diehards hated Keating by that stage and were by 1995 waiting for a viable alternative to arise on the conservative side of politics". Thats true and at the time of Sports Rorts and the canberra byelection the opperstion was indeed dealing with their leadership problem and the political scalps of Kelly, Canberra and Goss where all used in that debate to elevate Downer and then Howard into the leadership and bring home these political hits to Keating in the struggle for power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godianus the Finder (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

All of which is *entirely* original research and incompatible with what we're meant to be doing here. Orderinchaos 04:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to pick up Godianus's comment about me having an "alturnate" spin on events. Perhaps "What he said" was incorrect, as that implicates I agree verbatim. My issue here (drop the politics of the issue, it's just another rort like regional grants in 07), the problem I had and the reason I tagged the article is because it was of poor quality. The formatting required for a wikipedia article is incorrect, from text formatting to references to the unbalanced and journalistic way some views were presented. I suppose its ok for a new user but still needs a lot of work. Look at the other rort articles for a guide as to how it should look. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not really very orginal at all...its just a standard take on how poltitical events played out following the sports rorts debarcle. Neither is it synthesis, Keating, Kelly, Downer, Costello or Howard, the players in this affair have all now left the political stage so allagations of biased tretment are in this case insubstantial. The essence of this affair was that of percieved labor pork barreling, a trick later used by the Howard govenment, and that this had a measurable elecoral outcome in the loss of the seat of Canberra at the very least.

At this stage its time to remove the neutrality despute bubble and If people have any specific issues that need discusion then you should write them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godianus the Finder (talk • contribs) 02:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to be very careful what we write here - as effectively publishers of content we do have responsibilities. The people may be gone from the scene but they are still living persons and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia, has made a very big deal about those responsibilities, and authorises admins to, and I quote, "use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy." [1] This is not a space for us to rant about what we think of these things, or to randomly quote what journalists have sensationalised about it in the path towards making a buck for their employer, but we need to be detached and rational observers of the scene. It's always difficult in political topics where there is so much hype (and often not a lot of substance) but it is doable. Orderinchaos 07:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, please dont remove references and place a notice that references need to be added...that seems a trifle disorderly don't you think. Thanks for correcting any spelling and grammer mistakes..not my strong point i know.. Please lay off on the pontification and the paternalistic pratle..i am happy to take responsabilty for my assement of this issue, even if you feel its "too risky". If nothing else, I do feel its important to recognise that the Sports Rorts affair was an example using public funds to encorage voters to support the government of the day - a phenomenon which is not isolated to one side or another as the edits you so monevelently deleted clearly show (with thier references that you asked for!). Also I note you have replaced a notice desputing neutrality of this article without indicating why you think bias exists, you should explain that if you can. All the best. --Godianus the Finder (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove references. I removed what amounted to a polemical rant which tried to link entirely unrelated incidents from later eras into a rather specific situation. I believe what I've managed to achieve with a near rewrite of the entire piece and appropriate references, including the Alan Ramsay one provided by yourself which was most useful, a reasonable article that gives appropriate context to the situation and meets all appropriate standards. The point you make above is in this version, and arguably made much more incisively in that it points directly back to the facts without having to use rhetoric to establish it. Orderinchaos 08:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of the roster

Quote: On 21 February 1994, following changes to Australian House of Representatives Question Time which created a roster for ministers to appear in the House, the Liberals used the opportunity to demand her resignation.

I don't see the need to go into the QT rostering system. Isn't the point that she was in the House, the Opposition called for her resignation, and she subsequently resigned? In fact, they called for her resignation both inside and outside the House, so mention of QT at all seems unjustified. It's not as if Ministers who resign do so during QT. They do so after a closed-doors meeting with the PM, usually being told "I can't support you any more. If you don't resign, I'll sack you". I'd be bold and remove it, but maybe there's something I'm missing. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The rostering system meant she had practically nobody to defend her, which was the point made by the source I got it from. Case of poor summary on my part, I think. Orderinchaos 10:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. There were only a few ministers on hand, whereas under the usual rules the entire ministry is there. Maybe we should just say that. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) I'll send you by email the text of what I have if that helps. Orderinchaos 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to do that. Why not just make the edit I suggest, or whatever's appropriate. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)