Talk:Mike Rann/Archive 1

Reversion
I've reverted this edit by User:192.43.227.18 (talk • contribs) which made an usourced statement. I'm unsure it is relevant to a biography on Rann anyways.--cj | talk 08:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

2006 election
The design is incorrect. and the article should include 2006 election details. —This unsigned comment was added by 130.220.39.52 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 April 2006.
 * The design looks fine to me. The article already has brief 2006 election details, with a link to South Australian legislative election, 2006 Rocksong 23:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Family members' links
I've just noticed WP convention to not create pages to children of famous people unless they're famous themselves. I figure the same is true for Rann's current and former wives, therefore I've deleted the links. If for some reason either of them does something notable enough to get a WP page in future, their link can be restored then. Rocksong 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Image
This image is slightly pixelated could someone get a better one?58.84.76.105 09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to images, I've managed to find one PD photo of Rann online and have uploaded it to Commons: Image:Rann-Zoellick.jpg. It's not a very good depiction, but its the only option we have so far for articles other than this one due to copyright issues – namely our fair use policy.--cj | talk 02:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed :-) Timeshift 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike Rann Myspace page
Is that myspace page really an official Rann page? The style looks a bit too informal, and even has a copy of a news article (12/3/06) which has the premier's media adviser denying it's by him. I was going to delete it except the link was inserted by a reliable contributor, User:Timeshift9. Unless Timeshift9 can confirm it's offical, I'll delete it. Rocksong 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually waiting on a reply from an email I sent to Rann's electoral office. It's over the holiday period and I don't believe parliament has resumed yet so I don't know when i'll receive an answer, if I do. Timeshift 05:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at this newspaper scan which is on the page: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/lovespree/advertiser060301.jpg It basically says it's unofficial (top of last column). Based on that (one piece of evidence that it's unofficial), I think it should be "guilty until proven innocent" (or to be more precise, "unofficial until proven official"), i.e. delete it until/if you get word that it's official. Rocksong 05:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Rann in 1979
Admins, any chance i'd get a successful fair-use rationale for a current Premier off the ground for this (source)? Timeshift (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion
I've expanded on Rann's early life, could now do with a bit more filling during his time in parliament... Timeshift (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Advertiser
They're quick! I only just redid some of the page, now see this article from a few hours ago, the very last paragraph at the bottom. Seems they just ripped the entire second paragraph from this article. I know wikipedia is free, but they could have jumbled the words up a bit instead of a direct copy and paste... Timeshift (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Any ministers who aren't in cabinet?
Any corrections here would be much appreciated. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding cabinet reshuffle link, will update relevant sites when I have time. Timeshift (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9 edits
You seem to be doing a lot of edits on the Mike Rann article. Are you sure you aren't somehow affiliated with him? There is a NPOV policy on Wikipedia. This is in perspective of the amount of "media advisors" he has. Wikipedia is not a publicity tool. -Amylee243 (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much about it mate, I seem to be having a similar problem too. Just make sure you keep an eye out for the edits by Timeshift. 203.122.240.136 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And guess what! It'll continue for you! Do not add Family First, Fielding, Hood, and Day all as related links on each of their pages as they are not direct links! We do not add MPs to other MPs pages as related links just because they are from the same party. And Family First is already linked multiple times. Your edits are without consensus. Wikipedia policies state if changes are disputed, you must gain consensus on the talk page for your changes. Is it because they are clearly a no that you won't take it to talk page? I am a veteran editor with a good reputation for neutral point of view editing. An admin even locked the Bob Day article due to your breaking of wikipedia policies. Who are you exactly? Timeshift (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That comment isn't even worth a reply. No I am not affiliated with any political person or party. Go away. Timeshift (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true. Go onto the history of the Mike Rann page.  Edit after edit is made by you, and as soon as there is negative content you remove it.  I've put it up for Point-Of-View Check.-Xx teebone xx (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do a lot of edits in a lot of places. I've been on here for years and am well-known. Review my edits apart from the week, completely encyclopedia-building. My full list of all edits in chronological order is here. The edits in the past week suffer from issues with WP:V, WP:POV, WP:RECENT, and WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a place for Advertiser opinions and criticisms. This is a biography of Mike Rann. His policy successes and failures are in the legacy section of the 2006 election page. Add the POV tag if you have criticisms with content in the article, but at the moment it is completely arbitrary and without merit. Timeshift (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just don't do common reverts like you did here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Rann&diff=prev&oldid=218002719).-Media.miss (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That was not a revert, that was an archive. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if an admin can check these users and the users who've edited the article in the last week to see if they're socks who need banning, that would be good. It's interesting each one of these users are new. Timeshift (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Timeshift9, why did you remove this edit made by User:150.101.102.154 - "Particularly recently, following the 2008 doctors and teachers disputes relating to conditions and pay, Mike Rann has been accused of being a so called "Good News Premier". Running and riding when there are controversial issues come up or concessions need to be made." This is referenced from The Advertiser.-Idea-5000 (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V, WP:POV, WP:RECENT, and WP:BLP. Why are you yet another new user? None of the editors, or talk page editors, have been here for any length of time. I count 7 now. Timeshift (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has been locked. ''(Protection log). . Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) protected Mike Rann (sock attack [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])'' Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

POV dispute

 * I think the article's a bit POV, though not seriously. I'd rather it was made more clear that the opinions from Manning's book were presented as "commentators' opinions" than fact. (Personally I think he's way closer to Bannon than Dunstan). (OK I've just done that in an edit). I'm also not a big fan of long quotes by the subject (in this case Rann) being in the article, because it presents praise of the subject without counter opinion. Rann's careful media management has been criticised a few times over the years so perhaps that sort of criticism (which is what I think the recent edits were) can go in if there's a balance. Perhaps something can go after the paragraph where there is lavish praise of Rann from.... Rann himself.Peter Ballard (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Media management is unsourced POV. This is a biography of Rann. I won't argue with the changes though. But Manning is of more authority than any media journalist. And two quotes of three sentences each for the entire article is not overquoting. Timeshift (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's one source: Michelle Wiese Bockmann, The Australian, February 18, 2006. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That is clearly a non-news, non-WP:RS, WP:OPINION piece (she even calls Peter Lewis an eccentric). I'm sure that at the time, Dunstan would have been very much thought of as an expert at media management in comparison to previous Premiers. But is it WP:V and not WP:POV and WP:OPINION? Timeshift (talk)


 * But Kerin has signalled that one of the grounds he will fight the campaign will be on Rann's media image. "This Government treats the public with contempt," he said in a speech launching his campaign two weeks ago. "It believes media manipulation and using taxpayers' money for advertising can substitute for actually doing things. That's not the way a state Liberal government will function.". Fascinating - a bunch of contradictory waffle picked up on by the media from Kerin, and a few opinion pieces including media management suddenly make it a wikipedia WP:V statement of encyclopedic fact. Fascinating. Timeshift (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously saying The Australian is not WP:V, and not a WP:RS? And no, it's not an WP:OPINION piece, it's a background piece. Anyway, I assume you want the article to be NPOV: what criticisms of Rann do you think should be in there? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Australian news articles are WP:RS. I am saying that the individual journalist's opinion in that form which it presents itself, is WP:OPINION, and not an authorative WP:RS WP:V piece. Who is she exactly? Who is Haydon Manning? Criticisms of Rann are already in there, but you're not supposed to go adding criticisms for the point of saying it has criticisms. Opinions of how a politician operates with the public cannot in themselves be verifiable as it is all based upon perception not fact. I've argued his major policy controversy so far, WorkCover, should be in one of the election articles. Noteable factual controversies related to the government are in the 2006 election legacy section (i'd like to think we can keep SA Premier pages neater than Aus PM pages and keep it succinct in the election pages, as there's not as much to report on). Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I'm not necessarily saying use that article, though I happen to think it's a fairly useful and balanced one (there's a lot of praise of Rann in it). I'm just saying I'd like a little balance by some mention of his critics. Like I originally said, the article's a bit POV, though not seriously. Truce. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I mean: Truce? Yes another p.s: perhaps "POV" isn't the word, perhaps "unbalanced" better describes it. I'm certain enough Timeshift isn't an ALP operative. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't call balance adding opinion pieces by journalists from media outlets. Haydon Manning is authoritative. You don't add criticism for the point of adding criticism. This is a biography. BTW, I doubt ALP operatives would be uploading the main (and IMHO best) article image of the likes of John Howard, Brendan Nelson, and Martin Hamilton-Smith (I don't fancy the last image very much but it does have one thing - a free license). And then the many nameless others. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your problem. The piece is clearly labelled as part of the "Features" section. It is not opinion, in fact the "Opinion" tab is right next to it, distinct from it. The bit you quoted and called "contradictory waffle" was a quote from Kerin, not the author's opinion. Whether the author is "better" than Haydon Manning is not the issue, unless she contradicts Manning, which AFAIK she doesn't. I am not proposing to "add criticism for the point of adding criticism", I am proposing to add criticism because the criticism is out there (if you call being media savvy a criticism). Peter Ballard (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And how do you prove someone is "media savvy"... you don't. It's a WP:OPINION. Rann is no more media savvy than your previous or next politician. Timeshift (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry. If and when I put something in from this article, it will be properly qualified. Meanwhile, I think it's an interesting article and I've put it in the External links. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We're putting news articles in external links now? What is the aim of including the article? Interpreting interactions with the media, by us or the media, is complete opinion and point of view with no possible factual basis available. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sky News/David Spears on today's 'Agenda' chose to interview Rann for the Labor reaction to the Gippsland by-election. I wouldn't call that issue very good news... Timeshift (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is rather similar to yours Peter, but rather than use it to argue Xenophon is a media tart (arguably more than Rann), I don't because the statement a nonWP:V WP:POV WP:OPINION. But there is far more justification to look at Xenophon's media habits than Rann isn't there? Not arguing for it, just making the point. Timeshift (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you are using that The Australian article on Xenophon at Nick Xenophon, why are you criticising me for using The Australian article on Rann here? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that was half the point of the above? What I took from the article was verifiable fact of events, his original name, On Dit-Young Lib scandal, and independent/60 years mention. I did not use the article to cite a media reporter's opinion of the way someone works - something that the Xenophon article does not have. Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)