Talk:Peter Costello

Archives
Archive One

---

Table of political offices needs updating.

The table at the bottom of the article showing political offices needs updating to reflect that Peter Costello is no longer the Treasurer. Perhaps someone could do this, because I tried to study the code for the table, but can't understand it well enough to feel confident of editing it in the way I intend. M.J.E. (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but love him or hate him, he still is Treasurer until the Governor-General swears in a new one. That's the law, and that's the fact. Even though it's pretty clear Wayne Swan, or anyone else Kevin Rudd may choose, will replace him very soon. Wikipedia is a reference tool, and its credibility is undermined by people jumping ahead of the facts.

Sorry if I have assumed wrongly about this. I do not know a lot about the technical details of when terms of office begin or end, and I (perhaps too hastily) assumed that a clear election result decided it. I intended no political implications ("love him or hate him") in my comment.

I did modify a couple of articles in a very minor way based on the election result, and will go back and review what I did, and revert them if necessary, and if no-one else has already done it. I certainly did not mean to cause any problems or reduce its credibility; my apologies if I have done so. M.J.E. (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My computer signed itself out without my knowledge before I posted the remark immediately above, and so it initially appeared anonymously. Just in case it has caused irregularities in the history of this page, I write this additional comment to point out that I re-edited the previous comment after signing in, in order to attribute it to myself, and to confirm that it is I who wrote it. M.J.E. (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Apols, I did not mean to imply political bias in my response to the initial comment. This will be a slightly difficult period in that while certain things are blindingly obvious and clearly about to happen/all but certain, they are not yet fact. The ministers, including Mr Howard, retain their position in a caretaker role until they formally resign and/or are replaced by someone sworn is by the governor-general. The added complication is that I think it is quite clear and fair to say in Wikipedia Labor has won the election even though it has not been formally declared by the AEC. These issues are going to crop up in a lot of Australian political entries for the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.42.90 (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Polling

In regards to Auspoll (Ch7/Sky) polling, it was the only exit polling of the 2007 election. Shot info seems to think it's ok not to point this out. Par for the course I suppose. Timeshift (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, add in the source that says it's the "only exit polling of the 2007 election" otherwise it's called original research. A wikipedian of your experience should know this basic tenit of editing. FWIW, the context of the sentence is poorly written (ie/ the inference that the exit polling influence Costello's decision making) and needs a source to support it. I'm going to leave it there for a while though to welcome other editors to review, but if it cannot be reworded, I will remove it altogether. Finally, I would like to thank you for your obvious restraint in immediately engaging in personal attacks when somebody edits your edits. Shot info (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a google search of australian 2007 election polling showing the absence of all other polling would satisfy your strange desires on this point? And no, you won't remove it all together. Timeshift (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What part of "Original" in the policy WP:OR don't you understand? It's clear that you think that my you performing the research and then applying it without a source, isn't original research. Something that (fortunately) policy disagrees with you on. And unless you or somebody else produces the source that shows that Costello was influenced in his decision making by the exit polling....then it is unsupported trivia pushing a POV....something again policy disagrees with. Care for a third strike...O hang on...WP:NPA as well I'm sure will be coming up ... Shot info (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Exit polling stays. And who says it influenced his decision? THAT is your OR... Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read for comprehension, my reasons are articulated above. BTW, it's my opinion (POV) not OR what I read from the sentance. I'm not saying that you intended on doing this, but it's how your edit reads. Hence why I'm leaving it for other editors to review...something I note you have a real problem with... Shot info (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the implication that the exit polling influenced Costello's decision. Unless that can be demonstrated, the edit should be removed, or severely rewritten. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "He claimed that he would serve out his term and then leave politics." In fact, in the article given as the source for this statement, Costello does NOT say he would serve out his term, and I don't believe he ever said that. All he has said is that he will stay "for now." Unless someone can provide a source in which he DOES say he will serve out his term, I will delete this sentence 24 hours from now. Since the following two sentences are contingent on that sentence, I will delete them also. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing the complex and convoluted reasons people invent for removing the only exit polling of the election stating 58% of Australians don't want Costello as PM. I don't care how much it's re-written, but the 58% of Australians per exit polling figure has no argument that can be put forth to justify it's removal. Timeshift (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

dozens, probably hundreds, of polls are done every year. Why are exit polls more significant than others? Especially when the question at the exit poll wasn't what people were voting on. Plus the placing of the sentence implies it influenced PC. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your bias is showing again. How many other polls queried over 3000 people on this particular question, and at the time they were voting to boot? And again I don't have any issue re-phrasing the sentence, but to remove the poll altogether is obvious bias. Timeshift (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Your bias is showing again" - please give examples or retract. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you do, put them on my Talk page not here so we can stay on topic. How many other polls? I don't know. But my objection all along has been the placement of the sentence. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And i'm fine to have it rephrased or moved so as to keep it included. My point is, this is an exit poll of 3000. How many other polls do 3000, and how many ask directly about Costello being PM? And I would suggest if that placement is your only objection, this is rather strange - dozens, probably hundreds, of polls are done every year. Why are exit polls more significant than others? Especially when the question at the exit poll wasn't what people were voting on. Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my comment that lots of polls were done, and many of them asked about prefered PM, and Costello was often included in them. I've no idea how many got asked in those other polls, just like I had no idea how many Sky asked in the exit poll, because I don't care much about polls. Still, the 42% number seems about right. (i.e. I don't care which poll we use, and that one is as good as any). Nor is 42% prohibitively low. (I'd guess it's higher than before Keating took over in '91, and higher than Brendan Nelson at the moment). I think it fits better into a paragraph on how Costello was unable to take the leadership before the election because he was perceived as unpopular (as Keating was BTW). So move it, and we can move on. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Find me a poll that asked if people wanted Costello to be PM or not be PM, with as many surveyed, and I will surrender my wikipedia account. Perhaps you should care a bit more about polls, despite how much parties love to downplay their accuracy. Also, what do you base "42% seems about right" on, considering a) not all questions received a negative response for the coalition, and b) you profess not to pay much attention to polls? Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

None of which is relevant to my point above, which is that the whole paragraph hinges on the assertion that Costello said after the election that he would serve a full term as Member for Higgins, an assertion which is not supported by the source given. Unless a source which supports this assertion is produced, I will, as advised above, delete the paragraph in question. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No you won't. As demonstrated, the problem is the context in which it is in. Haven't you heard of the wikipedia guideline somewhere that says you should improve not delete things? Timeshift (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am fully entitled to delete unsourced statements. The statement that Costello said after the election that he would serve a full term is unsourced and must be presumed false unless someone produces a source for it. Since the following two sentences are grammatically and semantically contingent on the first sentence, I will delete them also. So you have five hours either to find a source for that statement or rewrite the paragraph so that the sentence about the exit poll is not contingent on the earlier, false, statement. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Already done. Election day exit polls of 2,787 voters by Auspoll, commissioned by Sky News, included a question on the statement of "I don’t want Peter Costello to become Prime Minister". 59 percent agreed, while 41 percent disagreed.[20][21] But my point remains, wikipedia guidelines say you should fix a problem, not delete it and throw the baby out with the bathwater. "The statement that Costello said after the election that he would serve a full term is unsourced" - agreed (I see what you mean about that now). Reworded. Not my issue though, why couldn't you fix it? It must be fun to go around giving deadlines for things to be fixed before you go around and remove them. What joy it must bring. Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was your issue. I said it was an unsourced statement which I would delete, after giving proper notice for discussion. I am happy with the text as it now stands. Please spare us your childish sarcasm. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if you spare us your deletionist attitude. Timeshift (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Only if you spare us your inclusionist attitude. Shot info (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have thought that's a good thing... Timeshift (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if it's Triviapedia... Shot info (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To take an inclusionist rather than deletionist attitude...? Oh dear. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder who first said "spare us your deletionist attitude". Oh dear. Perhaps some light reading of some policy will help you out here? Shot info (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You sound like a broken record. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear....the irony... Shot info (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Remarks

i wonder who keeps doing rude remarks about him although he isnt a minister so i think the honrable should go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was a member of the Federal Executive Council. Please be encouraged to learn more about the Australian political system. Shot info (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hon needs to be removed

"The Hon" at the start of his name needs to be removed as this term is reserved for current ministers. All politicians in opposition (even shadow ministers) do not have the title of The Honourable. Once a politician has finished there ministerial duty they loose the title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.140.69 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Hon is a title for life per APH source. A Member or Senator who becomes a Minister is appointed to the Executive Council and thus has the title ‘Honourable’ while they remain Executive Councillors. It rests with the Governor-General to continue or terminate membership of the Executive Council and consequently the right to the title. With one exception, Ministers appointed to the Executive Council have not in the past had their appointment to the Council terminated upon termination of their commission and hence have retained the title ‘Honourable’ for life. Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know who the "one exception" is that the above quote is referring to? --Roisterer (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two possibilities are Jens Jensen, who was dismissed as Minister for Trade and Customs in 1918 after a Royal Commission found that he had behaved corruptly, and Hugh Mahon a former minister who was expelled from the House for sedition in 1920. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well my sources including wikipedia article The Honourable say that the title is only for serving ministers. I have heard from a member of the house of representatives that the title is not for life. so you are wrong.