Talk:Mike Rann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Adelaide / Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Mike Rann 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 Adelaide.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other editorial assistance.
WikiProject New Zealand (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.



Inclusion of name[edit]

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?[edit]

Lear's Fool has identified that Rann holds dual Australian and New Zealand citizenship.[1]

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

Sasha Carruozzo, noteable?[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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’’.[1]

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[edit]

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.[1]

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) 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.