Talk:Frank Crean

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Frank Crean 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The Australian headline incorrect

The headline in The Australian on the report of Frank Crean's death, "Former minister Frank Crean dies" was wrong. It should have been "Former Deputy Prime Minister Frank Crean dies".

The Deputy Prime Minister of this country should be given the same kind of respect and courtesy that the Americans give to their Vice Presidents. A Deputy Prime Minister should not be treated as simply just another minister. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 1:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that the Australian, in their wisdom, used the form of words "Former minister Frank Crean dies" for their headline. We might prefer it if they'd written what you say, but they didn't. We quote book and article titles with the exact wording chosen by their authors, and we don't even correct spelling mistakes or typographical errors, let alone add new words. I don't believe we have any authority to suggest the title of an article is X if it's in fact Y. One solution would be to find another article that has the preferred headline. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless I still stand by to what I said before. The Australian's approach was just plain wrong. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-editors generally try and keep headline length to a minimum and that would be the likely reason behind the wording. He was also Treasurer at one stage and I would suggest a case could be made that Treasurer is seen as the more prestigious position in the Australian government. Certainly Peter Costello was seen as more powerful than John Anderson (Australian politician) and Paul Keating much more so than Lionel Bowen. The current situation with a powerful Deputy PM in Gillard seems to me to actually quite unusual. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Crean had been Deputy Prime Minister for six months and here's another case why he should be noted as a Deputy Prime Minister and not just another minister. He has been in the job longer than when Chris Watson, Earle Page, Arthur Fadden, Frank Forde and John McEwen in their tenures as Prime Ministers. Surely that should be more than enough for him to be noted in history for once being the number 2 man in the Australian government.

As to the comment about sub-editors trying to keep the headline to a minimum that is no excuse it is just plain sloppy for them not to appreciate the position of Deputy Prime Minister. As to the comment about the Treasurer I will concede that while Deputy Prime Minister is the second highest in government, the Treasurer could be considered to be the second powerful figure in the government after the Prime Minister. I mean going back to my example of the US Vice President - while the Vice President is the second highest in the US government, those in political circles do not think of it as being the second most powerful job in the land. In fact they consider anyone getting the vice presidency to be a demotion. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, nobody here's disagreeing with you, The Shadow Treasurer. The issue in question is not whether we should refer to him in the article as minister, Treasurer, DPM or anything else. Your beef is with The Australian for choosing to refer to him as "former minister" rather than "former Deputy Prime Minister", and I suggest you take it up with them if you feel that strongly about it. I should warn you that they would probably say that he was indeed a minister, so the headline is not inaccurate. Let's not spend any more time on this issue, as it's not relevant to the Wikipedia article on Frank Crean-- JackofOz (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the record I have emailed The Australian about it. Issue is now at an end. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Changed his name"

I'm wondering if this is a little strong, and possibly misleading. It suggests e.g. a formal name change via deed poll. I'm not aware that there was anything formal about his switch from Francis Daniel to Frank. My understanding is that he simply started using the name Frank Crean, and that's how his name always appeared thereafter. Does anyone know of anything more formal than that? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]