Talk:Gillard Government

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Gillard Government is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

Please discuss this redirect at Talk:Rudd_Government#New_Gillard_Government_article.3F --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Category[edit]

We have no Category:Howard Government or previous Prime Minister's government categories. Category:Rudd Government has one item. I don't think they are needed. Doesn't anyone know a valid reason why we should have these? - Shiftchange (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

Just under half of the current references on this page are bare urls. This is totally inadequate sourcing. Please include a date, author and especially title so that if the url changes the article can be found again. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a bot that can do that? I usually just put in bare URLs and eventually they somehow end up as proper refs. Unless some bored flesh person is filling them out... --Surturz (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
From my experience it is always best to create a full reference as you are adding material. I would suggest you bookmark the template page or make local copies of the templates which you most often use from WP:CITET. If your source is online, it is just a matter of copying the page title, author, date and publisher into the template. It only takes an extra minute or so and is definitely a good habit to acquire. From what I have noticed it is especially important when citing material from News Limited publications as the url tends to change more than other websites. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of opinion polling?[edit]

There was some opinion poll text here yesterday that I edited to replace it with polling from a credible source (since it was previously citing opt-in polling), and it was then removed with the message "remove opinion polling - WP:CRYSTAL - wait until next election". The removed text as edited was "Various polls in Australia have shown a substantial majority of Australians are against the carbon tax. For example an AC Nielsen poll conducted in August 2011 showed 39% support and 56% opposition."

It doesn't concern me whether information about the popularity of the carbon tax (or not) is included in this article, so long as non-credible polling information is not included, so I haven't edited it back in. However I do query the reference to WP:CRYSTAL. An opinion poll assessing what people think about an issue at a given time is not "unverifiable speculation" - it is a survey of current public attitudes. Even an opinion poll about how people intend to vote at the next election is not speculation or forecasting of a future event - it is a survey of how people currently state they will vote in a future election. Furthermore, it is often virtually impossible to unpick community attitudes to a single issue from the result of an election anyway - and indeed, that's where "unverifiable speculation" often really starts!

The line suggested by WP:CRYSTAL would be crossed if someone posted, for instance, "Various polls in Australia have shown the Gillard Government will lose the next election because of the carbon tax." Therealsleepycat (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls are interesting, but they are not encyclopedic and have no long lasting historical relevance. Except for those case where the polls trigger events (eg the knifing of Rudd), my view is that they should not be included. Opinion polls are not facts, they are just a guess at how people might vote, or how much their vote might be affected by an issue - this is WP:CRYSTAL. There is also an issue of WP:UNDUE - we should be covering the actual issue (eg how much it will cost, how much it will reduce/suppress temperatures), not merely how people perceive the issue. Encyclopedias are for facts, not opinions. --Surturz (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. WP:UNDUE refers to avoiding giving undue prominence to unpopular views. There is nothing in it that addresses (either way) the question of whether or not the general public reception of an issue is worth discussing. WP:UNDUE would be breached if, for instance, only five percent of the Australian population opposed the carbon tax and the article then discussed their reasons for opposition (especially at length).
There are many Wikipedia articles that are concerned with little but opinion polling and that are fine resources for those interested in upcoming or past elections. An example is Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2012. Opinion polling is frequently discussed in articles about recent and past elections because an expectation that a government would or would not win is often a relevant part of the history of that election, whether the polls triggered any clear events or not, or even if they turned out to be "wrong". Facts include facts about the general state of public opinion. It's the individual opinions that make up the polled sample that aren't notable and don't belong here, but the poll result itself may be a different matter.
The specific poll findings previously included here (even the useless ones that I removed) did not concern "how people might vote" or "how much their vote might be affected by an issue" at all, and nothing was inferred about the government's future in what was reported here, so the basis for concluding WP:CRYSTAL is not a correct account of what the poll questions actually asked. They were simply findings on whether people liked the carbon tax or not at the time of the survey.
All that said, the article is probably improved by the removal of mention of polling about the carbon tax at least from that section; it would be disruptive to include mentions of polling on every issue covered and there will be plenty of time to include a longer historical view on how the issue was perceived by the public later. So I'm tending to agree with the edit while disagreeing with the reasons given.
What about the "Popularity" section at the bottom? Should this remain? If it is going to remain I may improve it as, among other issues, it currently passes off opinionative claims of causation in cited sources as fact. If it is likely to be deleted I won't bother. Therealsleepycat (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the "Popularity" section, for the reasons I have detailed above. There was some mention of events (tent riot, Kev challenge), but these are already covered earlier. --Surturz (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Boat Arrivals image POV[edit]

A discussion is underway at [1] about whether more detail needs to be added to the boat arrivals image to improve its POV. Please have a look and contribute. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

NBN roll-out performance[edit]

I would like to see the inclusion of how NBN Co mislead with its statistics for better roll out statistics but discounting connection fault issues which prevented actual connectivity to premises. 175.38.134.146 (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. If you can provide references to show that this is the case and that it is noteworthy then it can be included. Presumably you will also include how the Abbott government is stopping the roll-out of fibre to the premises and charging prohibitive instillation fees as well. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)