Talk:Paul Keating/Archive 1

Captain Wacky

Why does "Captain Wacky" redirect here?

It was one of the Great Leader's many epithets. (We miss him, for all his wackiness.) Adam 05:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Negativity?

Is it just me, or does this article seem slightly negative towards Keating? Perhaps I;m just tired, but I got that impression reading it.--cj | talk 09:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To me, that bit about "the left-leaning intellectual classes of Melbourne and Sydney" smacks of outright bias; it sounds like a right-wing tabloid opinion piece. (I wasn't aware that there were "intellectual classes" [plural!] in Melbourne and Sydney, but even if it were so, the sneer in this paragraph is barely contained and makes for a very POV section.) "Keating failed to notice"... I mean, c'mon! References? --150.101.27.130 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't really need to worry about those insidious conservatives having there way any more, it seems to have gone the other way: 'These issues, which came to be known as Keating's "big picture,"[7] were highly popular with the tertiary-educated middle class, but failed to capture the aspirations of rural and outer-suburban voters.' So the intelligent urban dwellers liked it but the stupid country-and-outer-suburb-folk didn't?Ebglider91 (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Positivity?

How can you have an entry on Paul Keating without any mention of "The recession we had to have..." his most famous quote and centrepiece of his historical memory? This page is clearly biast towards a positive history of Keating. It totally glosses over his Prime-ministrialship and reasons for electoral defeat. --Blargon 10:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether that really is the "centrepiece" as you claim depends more so on from which direction you are looking. There would easily be half-a-dozen or more quotes from him with at least equal claim to fame/notoriety. If you think there's something missing, then add it...if anything, the present treatment is a little too dry, for one of the more colourful political characters this century- whatever one's views. True, there are many areas in which the present article could be usefully expanded; however I don't think that bias of one sort or another is its main deficiency.--cjllw | TALK 02:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)]]

The account of Keatings career demise needs major expansion.

The whole article is tremendously biassed toward Keating, as it glosses over the rejection and humiliation that Australian electorate requires of politicians. In particular it fails to mention the event in Keating's career that influenced so many of his attiudes in later years - that on the 11th November 1975, three weeks after being appointed Minister for Northern Australia, he was dismissed from office, along with Gough Whitlam and the rest of his ministry, by Her Majesty's representative, Sir John Kerr. His whole approach to the republic and the monarchy (which was also subsequently rejected by the people) was obviously influenced by this event, and to ignore it belittles the whole article. ````User:crooble

"These issues, which came to be known as Keating's "big picture," were highly popular with the tertiary-educated middle class, but failed to capture the aspirations of rural and outer-suburban voters. The loss of the "aspirational" traditionally working-class and Labor-voting outer suburbs has been a continuing problem for the ALP post-Keating." The best illustration of this was the Tampa affair, in which, for the first time in living memory, the Howard governemnt's strongest supporters were the Labor Party heartland.````User: crooble

What about the recession we had to have!!!!!!! What about the bulk property foreclosures, soaring interest rates, record unemployment? Whether or not these things are attributeable to Keating's policy - they are still notable as factors that seriously influenced his oust from power. --Never29 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Interest rates were higher in 1990, when Labor won, than in 1996, when they lost. And we did not have "record unemployment." Ever heard of the Great Depression? Adam 10:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Paul Keatings cool, don't get me wrong but you can't deny he copped the flak for Australia's poor economic performance. thats considered a reason why he lost the election to the evil unsuffering liberal govt we have now. Wasn't Keating treasurer before he was PM anyway? --Never29 01:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

By the time Labor lost in 1996, Australia was already in it's 4th year of positive economic growth since that recession. Unemployment was down to less than 8% and falling. I don't think economic factors were that significant in the loss. Unless it was a hangover from 1993, which I doubt. Australians were just sick of the ageing government and wanted change. It'll happen to Howard too. Kewpid 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Remember those completely inane "it's time for a change" ads?

The Royal Incident

It should be noted that the main reason Paul Keating is famous overseas is the incident where he put his arm around the Queen, breaking Royal protocol. I think it warrants at least a sentence. --Breadandcheese 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Royal protocol", ptui. He did not "put his arm around her," he helped her to her car for about two seconds. It was a trivial incident which was beaten up by the London tabloids for their own grubby purposes. Adam 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki has to be neutral! Whether he put his arm around her, pinched her bum or was just being courteous and polite, the event still occured! However you want to describe it! --Never29 01:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that the event occured - it's how it should be interpreted and what significance should be attached to it. In the latter case, I'm pretty sure it's minimal. If you don't believe me, pick up a political biography of Keating and see what significance gets attached to it there. Slac speak up! 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If we do the Google test, we find there are only a few hundred mentions of the "Lizard of Oz" incident. Hence it's not significant.--Jack Upland 02:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There are actually lots more references for "Lizard of Oz" and "Hands Off Cobber". Breadandcheese is right, it's Keating's main claim to fame in the UK. A quick straw poll around my office here in London found all the Brits remember it and none of them can remember anything else about the man. It would be great if we could get some of those screaming front page headlines scanned, but I can't find any of them Shermozle 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's basically all he is known for in the states, also. Not that he comes up very often at all. youngamerican (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

That is a truly awful photograph. Can't we find something that's better? Paul Keating always looked smart and this photo doesn't do him justice. --Jumbo 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to take it up with the photonazis. I don't understand why Wikipedia can't buy the rights to agency photos like every other encyclopaedia does. Adam 06:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no photograph of Paul Keating at all; surely one can be found somewhere?

Unsubstantiated rumours

As noted by others (see history) WP:BLP does not allow for unsourced defamatory material on article or discussion pages. I haven't seen any credible sources for the material so far mentioned and I am removing this discussion for this talk page and that of Sir John Kerr's. I trust that this is acceptable to the reasonable editors participating in the discussion. --Jumbo 02:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting all further unsigned comments from this Anon, at this and all other articles on my watchlist. Adam 08:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of labor party logo and what about flags?

I have just removed the ALP logo from the infobox because its use is not WP:FAIR. I had previously removed the Australian Flag because of the view that flags are unnecessary additions to infoboxes. The flag should stay if that is the consensus decision. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it may well be. The page should probably stay as is. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Minister for the Northern Territories v Minister for Northern Australia

In the "Early life" section, I corrected 'Keating was a backbencher for most of the Whitlam Labor government, but briefly became Minister for the Northern Territories in 1975' to 'Keating was a backbencher for most of the Whitlam Labor government, but briefly became Minister for Northern Australia in 1975'. (I admit I was puzzled by the Ministerial title. I would have thought it would hsve been 'Minister for the Northern Territory'. But I was wrong.) See: The Australian National Archive 1975 Cabinet Records
Shirt58 Monday 16 October 2006 7:24:05 (UTC)

Yeah. Whitlam changed the name of that ministry in June 1975 from "Northern Territory" to "Northern Australia". One of Gough's lesser known achievements ;-) Fraser changed it back again in December. Leeborkman 14:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali affair

Should we mention that Keating formally approved residency for radical cleric Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali?

124.183.103.181 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Keating had a role in approving residency for Al Hilali, who is a minor person. In the context of his twenty seven year political career, the last thirteen of which were spent on the Government frontbench and the last five spent as prime minister, this incident is not significant enough to appear in his article. In all honesty it was a media storm in a tea cup that lasted all of one day. I suggest that we revisit the issue in a month, and, if its still newsworthy at the time, then it should be added.I elliot 12:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Well he's been in the paper regularly since Oct 2006..I think Hilali must like to see himself in the SMH. There was an article about the investigation into him about him giving money to terrorist groups in Lebanon last week, he got cleared of charges. Deathlibrarian 08:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Hilali in the news today - the chaser guys from the ABC stirring him up at the airport, and he had to be taken to hospital.Deathlibrarian 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"The recession we had to have..."

I believe this was mentioned earlier on this talk page, but should their be some mention in the article in regards to this quote? It is a fairly significant and well known quote related to Keating, and to be honest, I was quite surprised that it wasn't present in his article. I was going to tie it in along with the recession itself, but I thought it would be more prudent to check here first due to its controversial nature. Regards, --Auger Martel 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

why not a sub heading of quotable quotes? eg the budget which brings home the bacon, banana republic, the J curve, recalcitrant etc etc I'm sure there's more.... 62.189.54.51 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That it was "the recession we had to have" was undoubtedly true and a link to the Late 1980s recession could be used to show how the Australian recession was linked to overseas events. The quote undoubtedly hurt Keating politically, and this should also be mentioned. AussieBoy 13:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruckner or Mahler?

In the paragraph stating the differences between Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, this article states that Paul Keating, when it comes to classical composers, prefers Bruckner. The article on Bob Hawke states that Paul Keating prefers Mahler. Does anybody know which statement is correct? --Astor Piazzolla 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps best to not be so detailed, and simply say he likes classical music. Rocksong 12:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's definitely a matter of trivia! I just got curious! --Astor Piazzolla 16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the aficionados of the Bruckner and Mahler camps wouldn't think it's trivial. One thing we know, though - he's never expressed any interest in one of my favourite composers, Astor Piazzolla.  :) JackofOz 05:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

East Timor

I have added a small paragraph discussing criticism over Keating's relations with Suharto by Human rights groups, upgrading of military ties with indonesia and the general treatment of E timor. It is referenced. It was deleted twice in about half an hour, once with no explanation. Please don't delete it without discussion here, or at least some explanation.Deathlibrarian 09:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Deathlibrarian, thanks for added the requested references, I am still a little concerned that the language of the para does not comply with the neutrality policy. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 10:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy WikiTownsvillian - I'll try to make it sound more neutral, please feel free to have a go yourself. Hmmm. Deathlibrarian 10:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I read the references a bit quickly, but who apart from Pilger criticised him "for his close ties with President Suharto and the signing of the Timor Gap Treaty over human rights concerns"? The ABC article doesn't seem to mention it, the Jewish group is more criticising an article Keating wrote in 1999, the PhD student mentions a couple of people I've never heard of, and Pilger, well, is Pilger. In short, I don't see any mainstream criticism - I'm not saying he doesn't deserve the criticism, I'm just wondering if the criticism is mainly from the fringes. Peter Ballard 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...well I didn't say it was Mainstream criticism, just that he had recieved criticism for it. Jose Ramos Horta referred to Keating as a "coward" over Timor. Deathlibrarian 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keating pic

I can't believe that we don't have a good image of Keating. Can't we use that marvellous painting of Bryan Westwood's which won the Archibald Prize? And what about the official photographs from the APH website? Adam Carr went to some trouble to get approval to use these, and I note one in use at John Howard. --Pete 03:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Refer to My User Page up the top for my views on this. Image nazis deserve a swift kick to the stomach. Timeshift 03:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Totally concur. A lot of the time, a bit of dialogue with the file uploader would sort out any problems. --Pete 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As a Jew I really wish people wouldn't water down the term Nazi by using it to label anyone who enforces a rule against you that you don't like. Let us compare... keeping someone from using a copyrighted image that could get the Wikimeda foundation and the uploaders sued for copyright infringement Vs murdering ten million Jews, Roma, gays, handicapped, Jehovah's witnesses, Catholics, and political dissidents...

That aside, I should point out that there's nothing that says fair use images can't be in infoboxes, just look at all the corporate infoboxes with their logos out there. The problem with using a fair use image in this article is that it's about a living person who could presumably have a snapshot taken by a wikipedian somewhere/somewhen. The answer is that the next time the man is making an appearance somewhere, go there with your own camera and take a picture!—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While sympathetic to your views on Nazis, I think you lost that particular battle with Seinfeld and the Soup Nazi.

As for the pic, I'm not sure that we want a photograph of Keating as he is now, old, wrinkled and embittered. Most readers would access the article for information on Keating as the comedian Treasurer to straight man PM Bob Hawke, and later as the "Captain Wacky" Prime Minister, between 1983 and 1996. --Pete 07:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While I take your point about the living persons Elipongo, the fact is that Keating rarely comes out in public nowadays; only perhaps to do a few radio interviews and bash the Liberal Party (and the Labor Party too!). Like most Australian politician, he's very inaccessible to your average person. Unfortunately I tend to think that the living persons guidelines were designed by some Americans who don't have a clue about the situation in Australian politics and the sheer difficulty of getting photos; they don't have to worry about their politicians and judges not having photos anyway because they're all Public Domain over there - we don't have that luxury unfortunately, and a few Wikipedia editors writing to the politicians is not going to change that. Most of the politician photos we do have in Australia were taken by a former WP user who used to work as a staffer in Parliament House and had access to media interviews there all the time. While it's alright to say "go there with your own camera and take a picture!", it's really not that easy (though getting ones of judges is even harder than politicians). I also don't like the fact that Wikipedia's picture licensing policy goes well beyond what is allowable under United States and Australian fair dealing law - which should be sufficient. But complaining about that will amount to nothing; no one cares about the views of an Australian. JRG 12:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're likely right about Seinfeld (Oy! How could such a Nice Jewish boy do that!), but I still don't have to like it. <sigh>

Getting images isn't all sweetness and light over here either- while Federal Government stuff is public domain, the vast majority of our officials are at the state and local level— those are pretty much all subject to copyright. I think the image in my state's current governor's article, M. Jodi Rell just looks lousy, but there's not much to be done about it under current policy. Our images of long dead governors are much better, e.g. Jonathan Trumbull.

I suppose that you might try writing to Mr. Keating and asking if he'd be willing to send us a well taken photo of himself licensed under the GFDL. I do believe the foundation accepts such things so long as you have documentation of the licensing. It's just a thought, anyways, hope it helps a little because I do feel and know your frustration. Best wishes. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes section

One thing I think this page needs is a Keating's Quotes section. Now i'm not normally one for trivia or quotes sections, quite the opposite, but I think some of his phrases really do make an integral part of what makes Keating Keating. If theres no objections or theres majority support, i'll go ahead with googling for all his witty quotes and proceed to create a section containing them. Timeshift 05:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keating is famous for his one-liners. Funniest ever. BUT, that does not mean we need a trivia or list of quotes in the article. What about an article - list of keating quotes? Whatever, happens, don't put a trivia-esque list in, please. Merbabu 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to create a second page and link to it. Timeshift 05:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be a good idea, but others may not. I suggest waiting for other opinions as you might have people deleting it. IN the meantime, enjoy this. Merbabu 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added your link Merbabu to the external links section. I think that's probably better than going about creating an awkward quotes section or adding a seperate page. Timeshift 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well i'll be. It seems the wikiquote functoion at the bottom of the PM pages was made for Keating. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_Keating has it's own collection of sourced and unsourced Keating quotes. Timeshift 06:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Defeat section

Contains a bit too much opinion rather than verified facts. many voters disliked Keating, perceiving him as being arrogant is a perception that needs to be verified. also many voters is a vague concept, is this the majority? seems a bit lopsided to me. POV tag to stay. Michellecrisp 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that Keating still gained 47% of the 2PP in 1996. Not exactly "chased out of office with a baseball bat" compared to some losses in history. Timeshift 05:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't really read like an encyclopedia - "it soon became obvious that Keating would not be reelected" is more opinion than fact (it became obvious to whom? At the very least that requires a citation, which I've tagged it for). I propose a rewrite.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Views on the economy

An important inclusion but probably needs to be worded more concisely in encyclopaedic fashion. but a good worthy inclusion! Michellecrisp 06:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just did. I think thats about as brief as I can make it. Timeshift 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Would also be helped by including various reliable sources to strengthen its reliability and accuracy. Michellecrisp 06:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

Hmmm - it's still just a long collection of quotes. It should be summarised/paraphrased in my opinion. --Merbabu 06:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, regarding your edit summaries, copyright is not the concern, rather, we need to write an article - not just a list of quotes. But, it is indeed difficult and you've made a good start. Merbabu 06:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing cutting down this section, if people want to read the full story from the Australian they can get the reference. I recently added the Lateline report in as well as another time Keating said similar things. The overall theme should come out that Keating thinks it's wrong for Howard to take full credit for the current economy. Michellecrisp 00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would delete the entire quote, and instead say "Michael Costello in The Australian supports Keating's view that it was Labor's term in government which was the catalyst", with the cite. 6 paragraphs of quotes from an opinion piece in "The Australian" is way over the top in my opinion. Peter Ballard 03:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed as much as i'm willing unless everyone is still unhappy. Timeshift 09:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Costello and Keating

Regarding the inclusion of the following statement on the Keating page:

In July 2007, current Liberal treasurer Peter Costello and former Liberal leader John Hewson joined ranks with Keating and Fraser in condemning Howard's economic record

The following discussion is pasted from my talk page; I think it should be resumed here. Peter Ballard 07:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing, otherwise we'd end up listing everyone who's criticised Howard's economic record on Keatings page eg State Premiers, Rudd etc. Michellecrisp 06:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Total utter rubbish Michelle. Political opposites criticise each other all the time. Very rare do they criticise each other when they're on the same side of the fence. Timeshift 06:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't explain why Costello's comments belong in the Keating article. In the Costello and Howard articles (if you can get them past Skyring and Prester John) - sure. But not the Keating article. Peter Ballard 07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift you're missing the point, if Costello is criticising Howard why is it in a third party article ie Keating? Michellecrisp 07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter, I believe timeshift has failed to gain consensus on this. this warrants further discussion before agreeing or not agreeing to include this. Michellecrisp 07:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said Michelle do whatever you want. I have no interest in discussing anything with you. Except to say rather than keep an eagle eye on any changes to the article, how about actually trying to improve it. Timeshift 00:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, please be civil, a number of your comments are not being civil with me and are rather aggressive including the use of swear words and "total utter rubbish". Improving an article includes deleting non relevant information. I worked a bit on this article in July http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Keating&limit=250&action=history Michellecrisp 00:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not talk to me Michelle. Timeshift 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to gain consensus on the inclusion or non inclusion of this statement which you are proposing inclusion. There is nothing wrong with trying to discuss with relevant parties. I've assumed good faith in that we are trying to work to a better article. At least one other party has questioned its inclusion. Michellecrisp 00:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't really see the point of the statement. I don't think the statements are related, and I'm not even sure that they're really comparable (I somehow doubt Keating and Costello have identical or even particularly close views on Howard's handling of the economy). They would, I imagine, warrant mentioning on their own, but I don't see the reason for the link in this article.

More broadly, though, I realise there's pretty differing opinions here, but it worries me that this discussion seems to have gotten pretty nasty. We've generally been pretty good at having people from all quarters working together on the Australian political articles (as opposed to the regular edit-bloodbaths on the US articles) - I hope this isn't changing. Please, both of you, try and cool it. Rebecca 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Michael Costello is a former Labor staffer (which I was not aware of before), I propose deleting his comments altogether. Two paragraphs of his opinion on Howard have no place in the Howard article, let alone the Keating article. Peter Ballard 04:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Interest rates statement is wrong

The article says this in the section "Reforming Treasurer":

   Just one year previously, under Howard, interest rates in Australia peaked at 13.5%, a very high level.[3] 
   (see: RBA: Bulletin Statistical Tables).

If one looks at the referenced table, it is clear that interest rates in Australia peaked at 22.00% on 8 April, 1982. This is the 90-day cash rate, the general rate of interest paid. This is from the historical interest rate data provided from the Reserve Bank of Australia:

  http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01Dhist.xls

The 13.5% referred to above was the capped rate for mortgage home loans. The referenced data does not include this special low capped interest rates for mortgages. The spreadsheet contains the general interest rate, which affects such everyday things as credit card loans, car loans, personal loans, business loans, overdrafts, and so on.

Look at the spreadsheet referred to, and there is no way you can draw the conclusion that "under Howard, interest rates in Australia peaked at 13.5%". Indeed, the data indicates that interest rates in Australia peaked at 22% on 8 April, 1982, when John Howard was Treasurer.

The data referred to in the link does not support the claim that "Just one year previously, under Howard, interest rates in Australia peaked at 13.5%" The year referred to is the year before Bob Hawke won the March 1983 election. Therefore, in the period March 1982 to March 1983, does the F01Dhist.xls spreadsheet support the claim? No it does not.

The spreadsheet indicates these data: 1 March 1982, interest rate 17.20%. The interest rate then rises steadily to peak on 8 April 1982 at 22.00%. The interest rate stayed over 20% until 7 May 1982. The interest rate then went to various values between a low of 9.50% and the high 18 percents. There is no "peak" of 13.5% within a year previous to Hawke's election victory. The linked-to data cannot be used to support the statement that interest rates "peaked at 13.5%".

This statement should be changed to match the facts in the referred document, maybe something like this:

  Just one year previously, under Howard, interest rates in Australia peaked at 22%, a very high level. 

220.253.88.104 10:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the statement to this, which also includes some historical information about interest and inflation rates when Keating was Treasurer and Prime Minister. I hope this new version will be acceptable to everybody, since it only contains verifiable, historical, economic facts derived from official RBA information sources.

  Under Howard, inflation had peaked at 12.5% in September 1982, [3] and interest rates 
  peaked at 22% on 8 April 1982.[4]

  The Hawke/Keating governments were able to lower the inherited high interest rates and
  inflation, and also to keep inflation mostly under control, except for some periods of 
  high inflation. However, the inflation rate under Hawke and Keating did not exceed 10%.

  Keating is often criticised for letting interest rates get too high, and indeed, as 
  Treasurer and Prime Minister, Keating presided over several periods of very high 
  interest rates.

220.253.87.226 14:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pete's monarchising of articles

Pete stop trying to impose your values on others, firstly non of the previous PMs have these fields filled in; so that would be the consensus at this point. Secondly there can be more than one Monarch and/or Governor General during the term of a Prime Minister. Thirdly the article isn’t even about the term of a Prime Minister it is a BLP about a person. If my proposed [[… Government]] articles get up then it might be appropriate, but this article is not primarily about the Prime Ministership of Paul Keating, it is about Paul Keating, obviously the Prime Ministership is going to be a central aspect of a BLP article about a PM however the info box should only have info which directly relates to the person and their career. You’re very sneaky with these edits and your continual claiming of the high ground is very ironic. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 09:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Timeshift 09:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revert

I'm not going to bother getting in to an edit war (despite having had previous talk page discussions where the community decided to keep it, with alterations), but I will note that it is amusing how some people can't handle what is the truth. Timeshift 12:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumably you're talking about my edit. It was about removing material which was both off-topic (it was about Howard (who is mentioned 7 times) not Keating (who is mentioned once, when giving his opinion on Howard)) and not a reliable source (being an opinion piece by a former Labor staffer). I also flagged its removal on this Talk page. It doesn't belong, pure and simple. There's no other motive. Peter Ballard 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Some balance required

This article reads more like a love letter to Paul Keating and an attack piece on John Howard than a legitimate encyclopaedia article. For example, when looking at interest rates, a reader might be forgiven for thinking that they were higher under Howard. --Pete 08:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You really are free to edit the page. Which section are you talking about regards the interest rates? Recurring dreams 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarified point on interest rates. --Merbabu 14:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

With Howard as Treasurer, interest rates had hit 22%. Home loan rates might very well of hit that as well except they were capped at 16%. Alans1977 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction interest rates hit 21% and home loan mortgage rates were capped at 13.5%.Alans1977 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I note, with some amusement, that Keating's high interest rates are barely mentioned, and certainly not detailed. Nor is his resounding defeat to John Howard, when many ministers lost their seats, given much coverage. High interest rates and a savage kicking by the voters are the two significant items of the Keating years, yet we brush them aside. Heh. --Pete 00:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

and the issue of interest rates is brushed aside and minimised with Howard's term as Treasurer. Alans1977 01:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. See John Howard#Federal Treasurer (1977–1983). Peter Ballard 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, my apologies. Alans1977 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, removing the POV tag does not remove the bias. That's like taping over a warning light on the dashboard because it tells you you are overheating. --Pete (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wanna reply to the very last post from the admin at the bottom of this talk page? Ta. Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving the sources is a different thing to removing the bias. Surely you can see a difference? --Pete (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How old would Paul Keating be here?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20026246-5008844,00.html Timeshift 05:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Micro, not macro

For at least the third time in the last year, someone has changed the word 'micreconomic' to 'macroeconomic' in the Reforming Treasurer section. Although they perhaps all did it good faith, there is an enormous difference between the two, even if only one letter differentiates their respective spellings. Moreover, to confound one for the other undermines the quality of the article, as it completely changes the meaning of the sentence. In future, I would appreciate if people refrained from making such erronous amendments and corrected any future instances of this occurring Apollo1986 —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

...‘As for the government’s record [by 1987], Keating claimed complete success. The big macroeconomic issues of growth, employment, the trade imbalance and inflation had been solved. Now it was time to look at the more ‘delicate’ microeconomic issues’ (p. 312). Thus the Treasurer and Treasury appropriated the microeconomic agenda as naturally appropriate, given their superior expertise. Responding to the October 1987 share market crash, ‘Keating urged calm and rejected claims that a world depression had commenced’...[1]

...Keating introduced many macroeconomic reforms including the floating the Australian dollar, substantial cuts in tariffs, and reforms of taxation. These reforms laid the foundations for the economic prosperity enjoyed by Australia in recent years. [2]

Would you please care to explain how Keating was the driving force behind micro, rather than macro, economic reforms of the Hawke government? Timeshift 05:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The quote you have privided is obviously a type/mistake. Apollo1986

QuoteS... a reform such as floating the dollar is a macro, not a micro, economic reform. Are you seriously disagreeing? Timeshift 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am. Please refer to the quote I left on your talk page. Apollo1986

Your last quote just proved exactly what i'm saying. "After winning an historic fifth-term victory for the Labor Party in 1993, Keating pursued his micro-economic reform agenda" - as my quote states, "‘As for the government’s record [by 1987], Keating claimed complete success. The big macroeconomic issues of growth, employment, the trade imbalance and inflation had been solved. Now it was time to look at the more ‘delicate’ microeconomic issues’". I have amended the page as such. I can't seriously believe you think Keating's floating the of dollar was a microeconomic rather than a macroeconomic reform. It's simply economics 101. Timeshift 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"The election of the Hawke Labor government in 1983 was a pivotal event in Australian microeconomic reform. In opposition Labor had been critical of deregulation in general, and of the Campbell Committee recommendations in particular. In government, with Paul Keating as Treasurer, however, Labor adopted and extended the Campbell recommendations, and subsequently moved to implement much of the deregulatory agenda proposed by the ‘economic rationalists’ of the 1980s." [3]

Yes, micro and macro economic reform. Both were a part. But the big reforms, such as floating the dollar, is a macro not a micro reform. If you disagree with this then you do not have any credibility in this issue because you are demonstrating such a fundamental lack of knowledge. Timeshift 06:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Apollo1986's talkpage, it seems we have conflicting sources as to micro/macro, assuming for a moment we take them in the context apollo is putting them in. As well as my own reasonable knowledge, and the sources i've provided, I think we need some more discussion on this issue. I also just queried my sister who has an economics degree with honours, and she finds it laughable that the floating of the dollar and tariff reductions could be considered micro and that they are definately macro. Timeshift 06:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well having studied economics myself, I find the opposite proposition laughable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That sentence only works against you. Timeshift 06:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

explanation

Keating and the Hawke government were known for their structual reforms to the Australian economy, including tax reform, floating the dollar, introducing competition for the banks and the lowering of tariffs. As any economic student knows, this is microeconomic reform. A definition can be found [[4]]. Compare with a definition of macroeconomics [[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"As treasurer for eight years Keating implemented the most far-reaching economic reforms in Australia's postwar history with progressive deregulation of the financial sector and float of the dollar. After winning an historic fifth-term victory for the Labor Party in 1993, Keating pursued his micro-economic reform agenda, committing himself to high productivity growth, greater efficiency in transport industries and improving Australia's international competitiveness. " [6] Apollo1986 —Preceding comment was added at 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"The election of the Hawke Labor government in 1983 was a pivotal event in Australian microeconomic reform. In opposition Labor had been critical of deregulation in general, and of the Campbell Committee recommendations in particular. In government, with Paul Keating as Treasurer, however, Labor adopted and extended the Campbell recommendations, and subsequently moved to implement much of the deregulatory agenda proposed by the ‘economic rationalists’ of the 1980s." Apollo1986 —Preceding comment was added at 06:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Key microeconomic reforms have included unilaterally reducing high tariffs and other protective barriers, floating the Australian dollar exchange rate, deregulating the financial services sector -- including a decision in late 1992 to allow liberal access for foreign bank branches, rationalising and reducing the number of trade unions, efforts to restructure the highly centralised system of industrial relations and labour bargaining, better integrating the individual state economies into a national federal system, improving and standardising the national infrastructure, and privatising much of the government-owned services and public utilities" [7] Apollo1986

You're not seriously quoting wikipedia to justify wikipedia? lol. Timeshift 06:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore: "The first phase of microeconomic reform in Australia commenced in 1973 with the Whitlam government’s 25 per cent cut in all tariffs, and related cuts in agricultural assistance of which the most controversial was the abolition of a bounty on purchases of superphosphate. This deregulatory phase reached its climax in the mid-1980s with financial deregulation (floating the dollar, abolition of exchange controls etc)." [8]

Starting to look like u just flunked Economic101! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"According to the 'New Economy' story the program of microeconomic reform that began with the floating of the Australian dollar in 1983 has, after some initial disruption, produced a new, more flexible and more productive Australian economy. Thus, the pain of structural adjustment has been more than offset by the gains from sustained high economic growth. " [9] Apollo1986 —Preceding comment was added at 06:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's an excellent government source on micro reform [10]. Note the discussion on the lowering of tariffs, one of the most important micro reforms this nation has undertaken. Apollo1986 (talk

Here's another micro article discussing cutting tariffs [11] Apollo1986

Microeconomic reform almost defies precise definition. Our understanding of microeconomic reform has broadened, as Australians have discovered additional impediments to the efficient operation of their society. I suggest that in the 1970s, microeconomic reform would have been described almost exclusively in terms of trade reform, and in particular, reductions in tariffs [12] Apollo1986

This is simply not correct. Here's another quote to further support my case, by respected economist Ross Gittins:

Contrary to appearances, bilateral FTAs don't rate as micro reform because, as any textbook will tell you, they're more likely to be "trade diverting" than "trade enhancing". That is, they're likely to do more to shift our trade to the favoured country and away from our other trading partners than to increase our trade overall. [13] Apollo1986

Another one: "reform induced trade liberalisation " [14]

I rest my case now Apollo1986

All your quotes are either taken out of context by yourself and does not demonstrate your point, or is wrong. I will await others. Timeshift 06:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there is a bit of debate here about whether floating the dollar is macro- vs micro-economic. In Australia it was primarily done as a part of a micro-economic reform package, and while it did increase the control of market forces on the economy, the macro-economic effects of floating the dollar cant be discarded.

Putting that aside, the paragraph is about the touted micro-economic reforms. As far as I can see the word 'microeconomic' is the right one in this paragraph. It was a key policy, and one that was followed in spite of everything else. John Vandenberg 11:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With my sparse knowledge of accounting terms I'd always understood that Keating's microeconomic reforms included the 1983 float. But you really need an economist who knows what he's talking about to give some guidance here. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics can help. —Moondyne 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The first economics textbook I picked up (there's a lot of them in this house) talked about Keating's microeconomic reforms. Whilst such an event has a major macroeconomic impact, and is probably even best studied as part of a macroeconomics course (I can't remember if I studied it in Macroeconomics or Microeconomics), there is no precise distinction between microeconomics and microeconomics. It's probably best to just refer to it as forming part of the microeconomic reform package and leave it at that, without trying to pin down its own precise nature/economic impact. - Mark 02:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I propose we agree to the edit I just made, in that there were micro AND macro reforms, not just one or the other. Best solution? Timeshift 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit confused. Whilst there was certainly a lot going on back then under the banner "microeconomic reforms", and Keating as Treasurer was in charge of it, I'm not sure if the stuff about floating the exchange rate, allowing foreign banks into the market etc. were actually part of that package of microeconomic reforms. The few snippets I read about the microeconomic reforms talked about improving road and rail infrastructure. It's been too long since my Commerce degree for me to remember much about this. Maybe the best solution would be to just change it to say "economic reforms", which clearly covers it all? There is still the outstanding uncited assertion that Keating was the "driving force" behind the reforms. It's probably true, but is the sort of thing that demands a citation. - Mark 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you are right. Floating the dollar is NOT a microeconomic reform. I think the way it is currently is non-contentious, as it says both micro and macro without emphasis on either one, and nobody (i'd hope) could say the 1980/1990 reforms didnt have both micro and macro components. Timeshift 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Most people seem to agree with me that we are talking about micreconomic, not macro, reforms. Of those who are less committed, they think the lines are blurry, because micro reforms have marco effects and vice-versa. Whilst it is true that changes to one affect the other, the line between them is still quite clear. Micro concerns supply-side, or alleiviating production constrainsts. Macro relates to demand management, or controlling the level of economic activity in the short terms. That's pretty clear cut. And whilst Keating helped with the macroeconomics at the start of his term by tightening the budget, what he is best remembered for is his microeconomic initiatives, which had a far longer lasting impact. In this category are tax reform, floating the dollar, introducing competition for the banks, lowering tariffs etc, and those were just during his term as Treasurer. The sources have confirmed my claims, and I believe there is a broad consenus here. Apollo1986 —Preceding comment was added at 06:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

a reform such as floating the dollar is a macro, not a micro, economic reform. Are you seriously disagreeing? Timeshift 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am. Please refer to the quote I left on your talk page. Apollo1986

Nobody is agreeing with you Apollo, nice try to spin it your way though. The fact is that Keating did undertake micro and macro economic reforms, as to individual reforms the lines blur, however your insistence that floating the dollar is a micro reform loses all credibility. But yes, there no clear consensus overall either way on this one, and we also have sources that directly contradict each other on individual reforms, even though many of your sources were completely irrelevant to the point. I think nobody can seriously argue against the current version of Keating implementing both micro and macro. And I still note, that as an economics degree graduate, you were unable to give me an example of a single macroeconomic reform, preferrably during 83-96... strange. If you are unable to, and I have sources backing up macroeconomic reforms, how do you have any knowledge authority to insist that the page contain not macro, not macro and micro, but only micro, as seen through your continual reverts? I'd say you're trying to push an agenda... Timeshift 06:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From his talk page: Macroeconomic reforms would have included tightening the budget after the deficit left by the Fraser government. Apollo1986

Done, problem solved. We both agree that there were micro and macro reforms. For apollo to now revert the inclusion of macro with micro would be NPOV/OR/whatever other WP page I could cite. Game over, now we can all go home. Timeshift 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it to "economic reforms". There is no point in saying it is both, and there is even less sense in calling it one or the other in the context of a biography. As I said earlier, it was a "microeconomic policy" - the actual implements used, and the outcomes were both micro and macro. Unless someone wants to expand the article, going into greater detail, I think the use of either term is going to cause problems. If someone does want to go into greater detail, please start that at Hawke Ministry, Keating Ministry or Australian economic reform (Hawke-Keating). Compare the detail on the articles on List of Australian ministries, as compared to Presidency of George W. Bush and the rest {{USPresidencies}}. John Vandenberg 07:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"As I said earlier, it was a "microeconomic policy" - the actual implements used, and the outcomes were both micro and macro." Although it's now irrelevant I completely disagree, so does my sources (although they contradict each other), and so does my sister with an economics degree plus honours. Timeshift 07:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Very sensible move Jayvdb. I agree. —Moondyne 08:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has articles about Macroeconomics and Microeconomics, which may be worth referring to, if there is still a dispute. Dollar floating is a contentious one, as it is a national event (Macroeconomic) but affecting prices (Microeconomic). I would not say that either point of view is laughable, though, as you can find economists on both sides of the argument.--Lester 10:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

refimprove tag

Why is there a {{Refimprove}} tag here? Its been left there for some time by the looks. What specifically is needed? —Moondyne 07:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed. —Moondyne 14:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent :-) Timeshift (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Occupation: "Activist" ?

The infobox currently lists Keating's occumpation as "Activist (Labor)". That's ridiculous. An occupation is not the same as a hobby, a pastime or a habit. An occupation is how someone makes their living. Activist is not how Keating makes his living. It should be removed.Lester 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually like to see a citation that he was a Labor/labour activist, and to what extent he was. But as for it being his occupation, yes, what a load of crap. Remove it. Timeshift (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Keating in 93-94 some time

I was a kid back then but I recall a guy jumping across the stage at some outdoor event in roughly that time period. It should be in there shouldn't it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that Prince Charles? (The target, not the attacker). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was this attack on Charles in NZ in 1994 http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1316856.htm Peter Ballard (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Keating's Asia

I think Keating's promotion of more Asian contact for Australia is worth expanding. It only gets the briefest mention at the moment. Keating started promoting the concept of becoming part of Asia at the time he was treasurer, long before he was PM. It stood in stark contrast to Howard's Asian stance of the late 1980s. I will find some references for this. Lester 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

copy-edit tag

In particular, there's a tendency to write vague statements (worked for a trade union: well, which one, please? If WP doesn't tell you, who will? Chronological references also often vague or omitted.

I haven't looked at the referencing yet, but it seems to need an audit.

As one of the most important Australian figures of the late 20th century, Keating needs a very good article. Tony (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Of course you're going to do all of it. You're the only one taking issue with the article. Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I don't have the sources at hand, and it's not my field of expertise or knowledge (I'm expecting that it is that for others); (2) although I care about the topic, it's not at the top of my priority list at the moment, but should be for the main contributors here (placing the tag is an indication that the article needs a prose audit—this often occurs in Wiki text, where evolution by committee requires reappraisal. Tony (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs a lot of work - I mean, 5 paragraphs for his 4+ years as PM? Nevertheless, most if not all pre-Howard PM articles suffer the same problem. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just had a go at part of the economics stuff: it's still appalling. I'm a great Keating supporter, but I can't stomach some of the pro-Keating POV, if that's what it is. Greater authority by being strictly even-handed, and for heavens' sake, who is going to add the necessary guts to the economic account. Amateurish at the moment. I don't have the sources. Tony (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

These tags are not meant to be added and forgotten about, they have a purpose. As such, I have addressed the POV concerns indicated in the article's non-article text, minus a few silly ones, eg, an effective partnership (won a string of elections together), parts of fightback being implemented (GST). Timeshift (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We've got a long way to go on this. I (again) direct your attention to the section on interest rates, where readers are unable to find exactly how horrendous home loan rates were under Keating. In fact the article gives the erroneous impression that they were higher under Howard. The whole article is a love letter to Keating and a diatribe aimed at Howard, and one searches in vain for a reason why the voters booted "Captain Wacky" out so savagely. --Pete (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone so passionate, you seem to care little about tangible improvements to the article. I feel a sofixit tag applies here! But the most delicious mouthwatering irony is that I believe both the Keating and Howard articles suffer/suffered from a POV issue, both need/needed tags, and improvement. You only believe one needs it. Ahhhhh :-) Timeshift (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

POV tags aren't very constructive. They should be a last resort, but in this manner are almost like a declaration of antagonism. What ever happened to raising it on talk pages? Providing specific suggestions for improvement. Or "be Bold"? The fact that one goes on Howard and Keating within a week is pathetic. --Merbabu (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift, the facts are that I didn't remove the POV tag from the John Howard article, nor did I oppose it on the talk page, so I don't know where you got this "belief" from. Perhaps you have superpowers and mind-reading abilities unknown to the common herd. If so, then I can tell you that you are wrong. I know what I believe - you can only guess.

Merbabu, there's been a POV tag on this article for months. If you like, I can help to move the article back to balance - Lord knows that there are plenty of negative things we can honestly say about Keating. --Pete (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"balance" is a meaningless/unconstructive term. One doesn't weigh up "positives" and "negatives", tweak to make sure a ratio is correct, thus achieving the latest editor's perception of "balance". Presumably, such an endeavour would require some quantifiable system of measuring the "balance"? 1 really bad quotation perhaps "balanced" against 4 mildy positives quotations? Or 300 bad words balanced by 300 good words? How would you thus bring, hypothetically, "balance" to Adolf Hitler?

Rather we want "neutrality" based on accurate, verifiable, statement-of-fact wording that covers all notable items. I think you are talking about notable ommissions. That's very different to "balance", IMO.

I take your point on the existence of the tag - thanks. I've also actually been trying to do something about it. --Merbabu (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Balance, in that we don't want articles that are heavily pro or anti. Just the facts, or if there are different views, then we present both. The Adolf Hitler article is a classic example of this, in fact. It doesn't condemn, nor does it laud. In the case of Keating, this article has been gone over at some point in the past, and heavily massaged to present a biased view. --Pete (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, Godwin's law has been fulfilled here already! ;) This article is doing quite a good job, but could get more material from both pro- and anti-Keating sources. I'm also surprised that the oft-quoted phrase that the electorate took their "baseball bats" to Keating in 1996 doesn't get a mention. Yes, this article still has a bit more to grow, but it's quite a good start already. Brisvegas 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm amused by the fact that it's been over six months since I made the comment about Keating's high interest rates not being detailed and nothing has changed. One gets the erroneous impression that home mortgage rates were higher under Howard. Why are we misleading our readers? --Pete (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Timeshift (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has changed? last night's changes. You're welcome. --Merbabu (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to your changes, actually. Mortgage ratges were higher under Keating, but you wouldn't know it from our article. On the contrary. --Pete (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent changes to the article have been broad and a vast improvement - you're welcome. However, I don't make a habit of adding uncited information. If you can assist addressing it, please do. No doubt, any addition will not be the shrill journalistic headline version, or the One Nation Keating-hater jingoism, but a measured and neutral appraisal with context. --Merbabu (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)--Merbabu (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You've done a good job so far. Realistically, I'm not going to be able to contribute much - there are enough folk hanging on my every edit who would make any rewrite a dog's breakfast. It's not a matter of one person hating Keating - I actually liked a lot of his attitudes, and my time in Europe is spent, like Keating, perving on old buildings- but it's the hatred he engendered amongst the voters that makes the current state of the article out of step. Keating wasn't one of our best loved PMs and an article that portrays him in glowing terms, avoiding or skimming lightly over his flaws, is inappropriate. --Pete (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So you think that as Rudd has higher polling ratings than at any time since and including Hawke's time, by rights his article should be "more glowing" than Howard's, Keating's, and Hawke's? One Nation Keating-hater jingoism, lol... Timeshift (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that at all. Don't put words in my mouth, please. I think it inappropriate that Keating, a man whom I admired in many ways, not least for his being a strong proponent of national infrastructure projects, should have his article so far biased that his many flaws are hidden or presented as virtues. There is good and bad in every man, and our encyclopaedia should present a fair picture. The Mother Teresa article struggles to find much in the way of criticism, but there are few politicians of prominence who are so universally loved or hated that their articles should be one-sided. --Pete (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The article in it's current edit has minor POV problems. Prior to my attempts and tag removal, it had significant POV problems. At no time was it all one sided. One Nation Keating-hater jingoism, lol... Timeshift (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The note says “checked for neutrality”. I’ve done a good job so far I think in “checking for neutrality” and it is a lot better. I’ve tweaked and deleted suspect wordings, requested cites, and added a few key bits on the recession and interest rates (even though these were off the top of my head and remain uncited). There is more to do, and I’m requesting assistance either as specific suggestions, or being bold. Ie, I’d like to see that label gone within a week – but that needs feedback, goodwill between ideologically opposing editors with "histories", and specific constructive suggestions/actions from other editors. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent for readibility) Thanks Skyring – and you’re right, the article still has a long way to go. One thing I do like about it though is that it is not a long list of minor details (whether “good” or “bad”) like the Howard article. I guess that it is function of John Howard being written while Wikipedia is up and running, and Keating being a retrospective. It’s much more of an overview. Ie, in short, it does need more info, but not as listy or as detailed as Howard’s.

I’m not so sure yet on the best way to convey the “hatred” towards Keating; although notable, any wording would be perched precariously on the very thin line that is NPOV. Further, there is also much towards Howard too. If we can find someone very respected and notable with an opinion we can quote as an opinion, or survey results that *might* be appropriate. For starters at least, it would be good would be to mention the resounding size of the 96 defeat. That section is not a complete disaster, but could be tightened up, and cites added. --Merbabu (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the resounding defeat was in the 13th year of Labor government, and Keating in his collective 13th year as treasurer/PM. If Rudd had his birthday cake moment and people flocked back to the coalition, I would suspect the next election would be pretty bad too. Keating was able to win an election in the 10th year of a Labor government. Howard was only able to win an election in the 8th year of a coalition government. Be very careful with how "hatred" toward Keating is phrased, I would simply put the "hatred" down to Keating's sheer arrogance. Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - so it appears that all of us actually have many similar ideas. I've lend (ie, lost) my copy of a Bleeding Heart, so I'll be reliant on other refs. Or at least in the meantime, I'm happy to add material uncited, at least to satisfy the "fundamental" POV concerns that warrant article-wide tag - then we have cite concerns which is differnt, but can be seen as progress. At least it would be nice to get the POV concerns to a point where they are minor and can be discussed here with a removed flag. (ditto for the howard article). --Merbabu (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to add OECD comparisons to show that as part of the global economy, the government of the day has little to do with figures like inflation. Margaret Thatcher is a good example. But this might be a little too unpalatable for some of the rusted Liberals on wikipedia, who knows. Comments welcome. Timeshift (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Views on...

These sections should go. They are just laundry lists where one POV puts forward their WP:ILIKEIT quotes, only to be replied by the opposing POV with their defence. I say most should be removed (they're hardly notable besides good tabloid copy). The few that are should be merged into the article. --Merbabu (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Keating views deleted

I refer to this edit where a substantial amount of the article was removed, containing thoughts and quotes from Paul Keating. Regardless of the merits of Keating's thoughts, had a consensus been reached for this major deletion? Thanks, Lester 05:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I see also that the "desiccated coconut" line has gone. OK, it's not serious politics, and maybe it is even "tabloid" (as described above), but it is one of Keating's more memorable lines.Lester 05:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Making large deletes to an article should be discussed first. As far as I'm aware, no consensus has been reached yet on deleting Paul Keating's views from the article (it hasn't been discussed on this page). Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with that bit of the article (personally I think the views section should be kept just as Howard's views on his successor are kept in his article), consensus should be reached first. I have reverted the edit because of this.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested above over a week ago - no response until someone actually did remove it. So now we have two suggesting it be removed - what is Wikischolar's view? There is no place for such a section in wikipedia. Perhaps there is an argument for some more notable aspects - perhaps - however, they should be incorporated into the article properly, not a laundary lists bolted on to the end. --Merbabu (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problem if they're reincorporated into the article. It's just that some of what he says in the views section is quite relevant and shouldn't be removed completely, eg his criticisms of John Howard and the ALP leadership when it was in opposition. Perhaps they could be included in an expanded "life after politics", - eg, "During 2007, Keating was highly critical of John Howard's introduction of new IR laws, describing Howard as wanting to stomp forever on ordinary people's rights to organise themselves at work" etc.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This afternoon's version has a "views" section that is twice as long as the section on his Prime Ministership. The section on Sydney itself is about half the size of the Prime Minister section. Do we really need to know his views on, say, Julia Gillard? Is this notable? --Merbabu (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If the views section is longer than his prime ministership, then the latter should be expanded. I thought his views on Julia Gillard were quite relevant because they were a criticism of the direction of the ALP at the time and were related to his criticism of the ALP's failure to pursue Howard on the economy. Surely a former ALP leader's criticism of the current party is relevant?Wikischolar1983 (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the answer is, as Merbabu says, to incorporate some of these items in the body of the article. But to delete the whole lot in one go was a bit severe. Lester 10:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm fine with incorporating them into the rest of the article too. But I definitely think they should be put somewhere rather than being taken out because they were noteworthy points he made at the time - ie, his objections to Howard's IR laws, Costello's inability to challenge Howard, his concerns over the ALP's direction, poor political advice Beazley received etc. So who wants to make the changes?Wikischolar1983 (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who wants to make the changes? Have you seen the history page from the last few hours? ;-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, for me. part of the problem has been the sub-headings specifically for "his views" - I'm working on those now. --Merbabu (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My 0.02: A views section is OK - as it is with all former PMs - but it is way too long. I think it needs serious culling, and thinking about what is notable. e.g. Is it really notable that a former Labor PM is critical of Howard? Peter Ballard (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Keating's criticism of Howard is notable. Keating was relentless, and cutting with his words about Howard. It obviously annoyed Howard, who responded quite a number of times. The "desiccated coconut" line is just the most famous of them.Lester 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Keating's sour grapes is notable, eh? Does any published source share your view? People come to Wikipedia looking for information on Keating as a politician and Prime Minister. That's what he's notable for. Keating's biography should focus on his time in public life, as well as whatever parts of his earlier life are biographically important. Unless he takes up some notable new career, wins the Archibald Prize or wins Dancing with the Stars, then what he does in later life isn't really significant. We don't have to report on whatever people say or do because they are celebrities - the popular media does that just fine.

I've also got a suspicion that if it was an equally corrosive comment on (say) Rudd or Beazley, you'd not be so dripping wet anxious to see it included. Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia full of useful information, not a chance to yell abuse at the opposing political team. --Pete (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Skyring(Pete), you should remain civil, and not infer that other editors have characteristics that they don't have.Lester 02:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Keating is notable as a treasurer who, for better or worse, pushed through major and permanent changes to the Australian economy, and, although one wouldn’t know it from this talk page, he was also actually the Prime Minister of Australia. He is not notable for the opinions he makes since then.

In my mind, way too much energy is being spent on defending dubious sections of this article. Surely this energy could be spent developing further the more important PM and treasury section (which was half the size of the list of viewpoints on Gillard, Sydney, and Howard).

I can see the same forces here at work that we have over at John Howard. Ie, anything that happened before 2003/04 is simply skimmed over whilst, a mention of anything in the newspapers that that has happened since then, no matter how trivial, gets a mention as highly notable. That's why Howard's 4th term section is longer than most wikipedia articles. Keating was one of the most significant treasurers and he was Prime Minster yet comments here are trying to tell us that a section on his post politics opinions, and people’s opinion of his opinion is worth double the space of his PMship? It’s time to stop pretending that things such as Keating’s irrelevant opinion on Gillard, Joe Hockey’s retorts to Keating, Morris Iemma’s opinion on Keating’s opinion are important. WHilst civilty is vital, it is more than time that people stop defending c**p, and either develop the notable stuff yourselves ("it's the economy and PM'ship, stupid" to paraphrase a notable saying), or move aside and stop wasting people’s time which could be spent developing the article. --Merbabu (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any forces working to keep pre 2004 material out. It's just that the requirement of references becomes difficult in pre internet days, as they are generally not as easily available online. For the record, I added most of the references to Howard's opposition years section. I think Keating is notable for his snide remarks and barbs, since leaving office. Maybe it needs abreviating, or rewording, but he is generally notable nowdays as letting off snide and cutting remarks, generally in the direction of Howard, who told him to get a life. Lester 06:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

By "forces" I don't mean intentional or "sinister" forces - I meant, factors and effects. Ie, it's far easier to throw in a current event that pops into the news, than it is to look back 10, 20, or even 30 years with some proper research. Sure, it's easier to just add in what's topical and at hand, rather than research that which is past, but more notable. It's kinda like the John Howard article (the photos and obama) where we are justify poor editing/inclusion choices because they are easy.

TO answer the other part of your comment, (once again), it doesn't matter what we think. --Merbabu (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I again am going to delete, and will continue to delete, the "dessicated coconut" quote. It is not relevant - it is not an achievement of Keating's. It is simply an insult. It is not relevant to an issue (e.g. "banana republic"), it did not reveal anything we didn't know about him (e.g. his "unrepresentative swill" quote), and it is not funny ("arse end of the world"). It is simply one man insulting another man. And it is gone. --Surturz (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Your bossy insistence is not cohesive to the wikipedia environment. Timeshift (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I also call upon user:Surturz to cease edit waring over this. While there may be merits on both sides of the argument, the challenge is to convince the other side of the merits of your argument through discussion. There are many editors who disagree with your deletion of a large portion of the entire article, and you have not achieved any consensus for your deletions, and edit waring diminishes the chances that you will find concensus for your moves.-Lester 21:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I completely agree with Surturz’s sentiments on the content, as always all editors must work with the community.

There are two problems with this section: the nature of the content – ie, not encyclopaedic, and secondly, even if it was encyclopaedic (repeat, it’s not), there’s way too much of it. Over the last week I’ve worked on the second of the two problems – perhaps Surturz can be somewhat placated by that.

Like the Howard article, once people realise that the last 2004-2008 was not the only significant aspect of these’s guys careers, we might see a bit more balance and perspective. IN the meantime, those opposing Surturz could perhaps be a little more circumspect and reflective on the bigger picture (no pun intended), and help get some broader perspective into article content – while Timeshift and Lester have pointed out the need to work with the community, at least Surturz is working towards quality. Again, like Howard, if there is no limited content currently at hand, that’s no excuse to pad it out with poor quality material.

As for Lester's "challenge to convince others", that only works if people are open to the reasoning of others. In my experience, those saying it (not necessarily Lester) actually have no intention of allowing themselves to be convinced by a good argument - so it works both ways.--Merbabu (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it fascinating and a revealing insight that some editors believe in absolutes. Rather than have a lot of post-PM information, the advocacy is for zero post-PM information. No balance. Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's incorrect Timeshift. What was being discussed was the removal of the PJK opinions. No matter what our position on that, it's very different to "zero post-PM information". But while we are on that, note that the post PM section was overwhelmingly longer than any of the individual pre-1996 sections - in fact, by my reckoning, it was 45% of the whole article. Again, this just illustrates the perspective problem. people are way too focussed on defending trivia from the last 4 or 5 years that's come up in the news, rather than actually doing some research on the times when these guys were most notable (particularly in the case of Keating, but also Howard). --Merbabu (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, ask yourself, what is notable about this person? Is he notable for a long and colourful career in politics, reaching the rare heights of Treasurer and Prime Minister? Or for his comments about political enemies once he'd left the spotlight? While we shouldn't lose sight of an ex-PM, neither should we give his now insignificant activities much coverage. Put yourself in the shoes of a student seeking information on a notable Australian. What goes in their essay? What is going to impress their teacher? Keating's input into national and international economics, or his sour grapes, post-defeat name-calling?

All of the above. Working in absolutes is not cohesive to balance, or consensus. Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's workig in absolutes? Yet you're saying "advocacy is for zero post-PM information"s which is blatantly and demonstrably wrong and is actually what is doing nothing for working together. We all make little errors - eg, me saying 30% instead of the actual 27% of Howard pics as you were quick to point out - but your comment was demonstrably and excessively incorrect. "Absoultes" indeed. --Merbabu (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that we spend so much time debating over trivia because it's a lot easier than actually doing any research into important stuff. --Pete (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hole for the pigeon

Labels can be contentious. While I removed “highly conservative” and restored “centre right”, simply “conservative” was then added which is better. Conservative in that they are right wing (at least to some extent), and not in that they don’t implement fundamental policy change. Sure, it’s a label that could be argued as POV, but I think that’s not a strong argument. Perhaps “socially conservative”? --Merbabu (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Article needs expanding

This article desperately needs expansion. There was nothing - absolutely nothing - about anything from Keating between 1991 and 1993. I've started to add a little, but it needs more. I suggest those who are actively deleting content from the article might be better to start adding content in. Lester 05:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Only if it is wothy of addition - we don't need to add to balance deleted material (if that's what you are saying). I don't think one expands an article for the sake of expanding. That misses the point in the same manner that for every bad POV, we must balance with another (or several?) good POV. Rather, content should be added if it is quality and notable (and all the rest). Not to fill in a gap, or because it was in the news this week, or was at any time a media beat up rather than some event of lasting significance. Ie, I get all sceptical when I hear editors justify with there lines such as "changed the political landscape", or "reverberated around both sides of the Pacific"--Merbabu (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - case in point - at least in my opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think you're being a bit too harsh on the recent info. The advantage that wikipedia has over other encyclopedias is that wiki can cover the most up-to-date information because it is continually updating. That doesn't mean that we have to clog articles with useless recent trivia but we should at least be open to updating articles with new events - if what's put down happens to be relatively trivial, we can revise it later. I think it's more important that we expand the important bits, which Paul Keating's article sorely needs.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And not only recent info. I'm talking about a 3 year gap in history with nothing. Surely there must be something in that era that is worthy. Lester 07:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Australian federal legislation would be helpful in discussing Acts implemented under Keating Labor, and those instigated by Keating under Hawke Labor. It is also a good link just to see the reformist nature of the Hawke/Keating Labor governments - 15 acts in 13 years according to that list (not sure what criteria was used to add those acts and not others). Timeshift (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

A free image?

As much as i'd like it to be, I have my doubts about the validity of the license for this image. Comments by those more experienced than me in fishing out this kinda stuff would be very appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The image referred to (Image:Paul Keating.jpg) has since been deleted. Andjam (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keating's painting

A while ago it was deleted as copyvio. However, on reflection, how is it different to the Ballarat PM busts? Both are accessable by the public without charge, and both are permanent fixtures. So why can't we use it? Timeshift (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I spoke to an admin, indeed there is no reason it can't be used as it is accessable by the public without charge and is a permanent fixture. So i've added it. Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Keating's latest thoughts

Article and full speech. Some of it may be worth adding to the article in some form. Timeshift (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)