Talk:Paul Keating/Archive 2

Date of apology to Mahathir over "Embassy"
Quote: ''In 1991, Keating's government was involved in a diplomatic dispute with Malaysia, after the screening of the drama Embassy on Australian television. The drama depicted corruption in the fictitious Asian country of Ragaan, which Malaysia's Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad considered to be a thinly disguised swipe at Malaysia. Keating was forced to issue a formal apology to Malaysia to defuse the situation''.

Keating only became PM on 20 December 1991, at a time when most soaps have gone on Xmas break and mini-series are not usually being broadcast. Did he really make this apology in the short time that was left of 1991? 1992 seems a safer bet. "Embassy" had been screening since 1990, so why was Hawke's government not similarly targetted by the Malaysians? - JackofOz (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the New York Times ref really does say 1991. It was already controversial by 1991, as indicated by this published paper: "Kessler, Clive S. "Negotiating Cultural Difference: on Seeking, not Always Successfully, to Share the World with Others - or, in Defence of 'Embassy'". Asian Studies Review 2 (1991): 57-73." which is cited a couple of times on the web. Embassy ran from 1990-1992 according to IMDB. I think we can safely hedge our bets and say "1991-92" even though the NY Times says 1991. It does seem unlikely that he apologised during his first 12 days in office around Xmas 1991. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is some confusion. This says that it was Gareth Evans who apologised over “Embassy”, in July 1991.  Hawke was still the PM then. What Keating apologised for, in 1993, was for causing unintentional offence over the use of the word "recalcitrant".  --  JackofOz (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect that is the correct story, and that the NY Times got it wrong. It's hard to imagine a double apology (Evans then later Keating) over the one TV show. That would also make the NY times half right: the apology date right (1991) but the person wrong. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the para, but put the Evans apology into Embassy (TV series) Peter Ballard (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
What's with the neutrality tag? What steps need to be taken to get rid of it? Such tags should be a last resort, and not a permanent fixture. --Merbabu (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing it. The tag says "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page", but no dicussion was initiated on this talk page. So since the nominator gave no reasons for the tag, and page is not blatantly and obviously POV, I'm removing the tag. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory Detention - inclusion fine, but needs clarity/focus...
This on the Keating Govt's mandatory detention legislation has been added. I suggest the first of the two new sentences is fine - verifiable and seems relevant/notable enough. But, I've removed the second sentence and recommend it be left out for now until there is some extra focus or clarity. The removed wording suggested to me - if I may be a little simplistic - that the controversy in the Howard years was all Keating's fault. But, was there not more to it? Was it not also the way the Howard Govt managed/enforced it? What exactly was the source of controversy? I don't think there needs to be many words given to it in the article - just one, or at most two, focussed sentences referencing the Howard years controversy.

Any genius and articulate suggestions? Actually, forget genius - let's find one that's factual and likely to get consensus immediately. ;-)  --Merbabu (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there should be no mention of Howard and it's fine how it is now. What happened under Howard was nothing to do with Keating, and was something that (I suspect) neither side of politics would have anticipated in 1992. If people want to find out more about the issue, they can click the link to Mandatory detention in Australia which is provided. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I only added the Howard reference because I've copped a beating in recent days with editors accusing me of POV-pushing. I didn't want to be accused again of violating NPOV so I added a line saying that it became controversial during the Howard administration. I do not remember if the law was notable at the time, but it certainly became so. I am happy others saw fit to remove the Howard bit. As an idle question, if an event was not seen as important at the time, but becomes important later, is it appropriate to mention the fact that it became important (if the article only concerns the earlier time period)? --Surturz (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I myself am actually not sure whether to include mention of the Howard Govt controversy. It could be seen as irrelevant or POV-pushing, but mentioning it (appropriately) does give the mention of the Keating-era legislation some context. Otherwise, as you are implying, it's relevance to the article is not so apparent. huh - in writing this, I think I may have answered my question. Perhaps we do need to include mention of Howard? Say something like:
 * The issue of mandatory detention was the a source of controversy during the subsequent Howard Government.
 * THoughts?
 * Incidently, the SBS link provided doesn't appear to be working. --Merbabu (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with my original wording, "Mandatory detention became controversial under the Howard Goverment"? Is anyone really denying that mandatory detention was non-controversial under Keating and then became controversial in the Howard era? this link or this one could possibly replace the SBS link but they are opinion pieces and therefore not WP:RS (see this diff). --Surturz (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For once I agree with Surturz. It is one thing to take a boat, put the occupants in to detention, and assess their claim of genuine refuge, it is another to refuse a boat and let them float out at sea, excise islands and waters, and create a so-called Pacific Solution. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Surturz, you didn't actually write "Mandatory detention became controversial under the Howard Goverment". But, that is an improvement on what you did write:
 * Keating introduced mandatory detention for asylum seekers with bipartisan support in 1992. This policy was to become controversial under the Howard Government.
 * ...which for me is reading as if it is trying to say it was actually Keating's fault and that nothing had changed between the two governments. Timeshift's interpretation of the events highlights my point that it's not so much the legislation but what antagonised many was the manner in which mandatory detention was handled. I trust people can see the difference. (I would also accept that *part* of the difference in "controversy" was that many people who found it easy to hammer Howard would find it hard to hammer Keating the same way on the same issue - but that's a tangential and non-encyclopaedic discusson.
 * As for mentioning the Howard years, I now think it *is* good to provide some context - simply a Keating era mention does look a little odd out there by itself. However, we just need to not put subtle and inadvertent POV tinges to it. I'm going to put Mandatory detention was controversial under the Howard Government. I'm tempted to say something like "The Howard Government's administration of mandatory detention was controversial" but maybe that is too much??? (although, in support of the latter, mandatory detention remains in place under Rudd, but it appears to no longer attract the controversy) --Merbabu (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I don't see the nuances of meaning you do in the proposed wordings so far, so I don't personally care too much about which version you want. However, were there any changes to the mandatory detention legislation under Howard? (not a rhetorical question - I don't know) The trouble we might be having is that in Australia (unlike say America) there is no separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. So if Keating put the laws in, and it was only the Howard govt's implementation of those laws that caused the controversy, it is quite fair for Keating to take some of the responsibility for the controversy. However, if Howard changed the laws, and changed their enforcement, then Howard should have 100% responsibility for the controversy. A hypothetical corrollary would be if Keating introduced a loophole in the tax laws that wasn't discovered until Howard's time. It may be quite fair to say something like "Subsequently, the administration of this law became controversial under the Howard Government". I have a fairly cynical belief as to why mandatory detention is no longer controversial under Rudd, so I won't share it. --Surturz (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That the media might be biased, or that certain activists may be selective in their outrage? Impossible! The next thing you'll tell me is that extraordinary rendition occurred during the Clinton presidency! Andjam (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) [Withdrawn Andjam (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)]
 * how about we then add that "following the election of the Rudd Labor Govt it was no longer controversial"? ;-). --Merbabu (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Queen incident
There is a famous incident where Keating outraged the British by putting has arm around Queen Elizabeth II. Regardless of what we think of it now, it caused a furore at the time. It used to be in the article, but someone has deleted it. Why do things under-the-radar? The reasonable thing to do is to create a discussion before deleting referenced content. The next thing to do is to create an edit summary that states what was deleted, for example, "deleted Queen incident". It's not that hard. Deleting it under-the-radar is one editor trying to override the community of editors.-- Lester  03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was not done "under the radar". It’s clear in the edit summary history. To suggest as you haev that it was done in bad faith is a major problem on wikipedia. Accusing me of overriding the community is non-conducise to collaboration. If you have problem working the history page, then don't vent your frustrations by incivilty. Please reconsider your approach. --Merbabu (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * More than ever, things are done in bad faith on wikipedia Merbabu. I'm sure Lester didn't see it in the edit history and presumed like much subject removal it was done under-the-radar. And where did he accuse you of overriding the community? There is no need to be condescending toward Lester. Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll let your comemnts on bad faith go to the keeper, as I note it's difficult for you to support with specifics. To answer your question, please re-read Lester's last sentence. If he did not intend that as a bad faith directed on myself, then I can accept that, but it's not how it reads to me. --Merbabu (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the record, i removed it as I saw it as an example of writing on Oz Pol articles where editors chose the lazy easy approach and quote tidbits from newspapers (particularly media beat-ups), rather than do some decent research into policies implemented, the context of those policies, and the consequences. --Merbabu (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That in itself sounds like a bit of bad faith... Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interpret that as you will. You've recently said that you have a low impression of me as an editor, so it's no surprise (which I'm sure you said in good faith ;-)  ) So, I rather talk about article content, if anything. The other side to the coin is that this article's ommissions are huge, and would be nice to see some scholarly work done on it, but I admit I don't have the time - other wikipedia priorities - but I can remove what I see as trivia/undue weight.  --Merbabu (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At times, yes, I do think your edits/comments can be rather poor. Not always, just sometimes. Timeshift (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is trivial or undue should be a reflection of how the outside world treated the matter, rather than if we liked it or not. I apologise if I worded my complaint too strongly. But I performed a word-search and found no edit summary with "Queen" or "arm". Without an edit summary describing the content that was deleted, it makes it hard to know that the deletion occurred, and then causes a frustrating waste of time to locate the edit where the deletion was made. I could find no prior discussion before the referenced content was deleted.-- Lester  04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's only 6 edits back - 4 if you count a dodgy eidt and its revert. I just assumed that everyone was watching these pages like hawks. he he. And it's plain to see. To be honest, I can't see the big deal. Ie, things change, people have different opinions, and people sometimes follow WP:BOLD, and people can disagree, discuss and/or revert - it's not about doing things "udner the radar" or "overiding the community of editors". But i accept if I interpreted you written comments stronger than you intended. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I look at the history log (sometimes), but I don't run diff on every change! That's why an edit needs to be descriptive, especially on something potentially controversial. I accept your edit was in good faith, but your edit description "well, keep in the british tabloid press then" was not at all helpful.
 * Now onto the edit itself: I think it should be kept. Incidents that generate a lot of press (like that one, or the Rudd stripclub, or the Fraser trousers, etc) deserve to be in, with a neutral description, so people can look them up and get the exact story of what did and didn't happen. Now I know this is a severe case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it so happens that I was discussing this incident with my family yesterday. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no - it's not a case of IDONTLIKEIT, it's that I think it's trivial, a media beat up, and of no consequence. Even if you disagree, at least give me more credit than that. Keating's introduction of compulsory 9% superannuation, on the other hand.... --Merbabu (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. I was (jokingly) applying severe WP:IDONTLIKEIT to myself - not to you - in that I didn't like the delete because the incident up in a family discussion. But the real reason I don't like the delete is that it generated a lot of press. I believe it is more borderline than the other ones I mentioned (Rudd stripclub, Fraser's trousers), but it generated enough press that I don't see the harm of putting it in. The great thing about Wikipedia is I can look up almost anything, and I find decents facts on the event in question, and I go, "wow, Wikipedia has everything!" I don't know how many people would want to do it on the Keating/Queen incident, but I imagine there are enough to warrant its inclusion. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK – understood on your “IDONTLIKEIT” comments. While I still believe the Lizard of Oz, Obama Drama, and Rudd’s strip club incidents don’t really belong, I agree that they were big news (as opposed to big consequence) – and thus I acknowledge it is difficult to convince others who may hold different criteria for inclusion. Perhaps my approach needs refining: I’ve argued that there are much more important things to include (which require the effort of research) and a more coherent “big picture” approach to writing an article. Perhaps once this quality coherent info is in place, then my “let’s delete this trivia/beat-up” cases would become clearer.
 * My problem with its inclusion was that it took up (comparatively) such a prominent position relative to the attention to “more important” issues – but that is due to lack of other info. Perhaps similar to Timeshift’s argument along “undue weight” to exclude Rudd’s health problems. Indeed, the Lizard of Oz incident might look better in amongst a more coherent and comprehensive article rather than sticking out like a sore thumb as it did.
 * To this end, I am looking through sources and tinkering at the moment – I will try to prise myself away from Suharto which I’m ½ way though, and pay more attention to developing some Oz Pol leaders – say JH and H Govt. I also hope Orderinchaos can assist as he has had some good ideas and good track record.
 * Actually, if you will excuse my rambling, now that I mention it, there are similarities on Suharto (which is nudging 80kb already) and JH article. Ie, I think there is a good opportunity for “Suharto Govt” type info which I have copious quantities of sources to go into the very underdeveloped New Order (Indonesia) article in much the same way as there is (now hopefully growing) H Govt article. Interesting. :-)
 * Regards, --Merbabu (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where did I ever say Rudd's health issues shouldn't be included? Timeshift (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Found good image
This Image at http://images.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.peo.gov.au/images/library/0151.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.peo.gov.au/multimedia/library/pages/0151.html&usg=__qyfMXhhxZfwT5IFeXYL5d8dG7SA=&h=350&w=250&sz=8&hl=en&start=6&sig2=_Wd_T05goVuj2Q51i1kgdg&um=1&tbnid=lu4JxaAdz-rx3M:&tbnh=120&tbnw=86&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpaul%2Bkeating%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1C1GGLS_enAU306AU306%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=6yDMSuWsHtOHkQWU5uHlBA is a godd image as it shows him clearly and during his career a PM. This template must be added when the Image is uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_AUSPIC --KAPITALIST88 (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That template has expired. That image cannot be used on wikipedia in any shape or form as it has a copyright on it and the subject is currently a living person. I uploaded that particular image years ago and was eventually removed with all the other images during the Great Purgefest. Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Keating government
I think that material on Keating's Prime Ministership should be moved to Keating Government, as government actions generally happen after collective discussion, rather than being the sole product of one person. Andjam (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but there is a bit of a schism among the Auspol editors about this approach. See the talkpages on the Kevin Rudd, John Howard, and Howard Government articles
 * Support - with clarification - from a coverage/detail point of view, it makes more sense that the govt article goes into more detail, and I do not support removal of *all* info from here. Please keep the most pertinent and significant events here. The important thing to remember, it is that we are not splitting the article as detractors have argued with regard to Howard. Rather, Keating Govt is a legit and notable topic irrespective of the fact that we have a biography of it's leaders. Once created, it then makes sense to move some of the more trivial or govt focussed stuff out of the biography. --Merbabu (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I copied some of the text over that I thought was most relevant to the govt article. I did remove any material from the PJK article - yet. --Merbabu (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The 'Keating government' article is a bad idea, especially since the experiment of the 'Howard Government' article was a failure. Doing it over the Xmas period also doesn't help. -- Lester  15:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Failure? On the contrary. It's a rip-roaring success. But it has been disappointing that that those opposed to the new article were avidly adding bits to JH but now don't add to either. I'm surprised Lester that you hadn't been building up the Govt article. AN ideal opportunity for the detail that you would like to see go into the JH biography. As for Christmas, the PJK govt article was created months ago. But, if i had my copies of "Bleeding Heart" and "Engagement" I could help flesh it out more - i lent gave them away. not happy Jan --Merbabu (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Success is in the eye of the beholder. It seems a majority of replies in here thus far do not think the same as you Merbabu. Timeshift (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I still disagree with the idea of splitting the articles because a) duplication is bound to exist, b) fights break out over what goes where and what shouldn't be included, and c) the average joe not familiar with wikiauspolitics will glance over the PM's page and not his government and move on - but with a long article at Howard Government, it seems silly to have it just for one PM's government. Timeshift (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy Christmas All!!!! Timeshift, your more thoughtful comments are more constructive. hmmm, in response:
 * (a) I'd suggest required "overlap" rather than "duplication". Indeed, either is fine and necessary within wikipedia - to some extent. It's just that some articles have a different focus. We cannot expect that all content is only listed in one place. But i would agree that if each section was a mirror of the other article's, then that is a problem.
 * (b) Potential for argument is not a reason not to have an article on a notable topic. If that was the case, we should close down most articles now, including John Howard (arguments were happening over that well before the govt article). Indeed, many of the previous arguments have stopped since the creation of the howard govt - although I suspect the "argument" problem of howard govt is being exaggerated by one or two who didn't want to see its creation.
 * (c) Most probably - just like most people will skip over Indonesia and not bother with Indonesian National Revolution - it's inherent in wikipedia, indeed knowledge in general, that the more specific you become, the less people are interested. It doesn't mean that we discourage specific topics. i agree that it's silly to have just JH with a govt article (alhtough we do have PJK too). But it was the obvious first choice as due to the scourge of recentism and our penchant for sticking in the latest news report rather than seeing the bigger picture (no pun intended), there is so much more info here about JH (and not necessarily better quality).
 * As I've said before, I don't see it as a "split". It was the creation of an article on notable topic. Thus, once we have the government articles, there is scope to go into more detail that we couldn't go into in a biography, and indeed, naturally enough there is scope for sum redistribution (and, some amount of natural overlap is fine - but not mirroring of course).
 * regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merry Christmas all. I disagree with the split for the same reasons Timeshift gives. The arguments have only stopped in Howard articles because editing has stopped! People have given up on it, at least I have. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That people have given up has nothing to do with the presence of a Howard Govt article - it's been like that for years. Over what *specific* issue/s has editing stopped at John Howard because of the presence of a Howard Govt article? I suggest the presence of the howard govt article annoys those (not you Peter) who would like to see "negative" details included in the higher exposure John Howard article - such details have less of the presumed desired effect though when they are (more appropriately) in the less exposed govt. article. That's why i suggest people have "given up". It's certainly why they can't be bothered adding their wishes to the govt article.Perhaps people should spend less time complaining and more time improving the govt article. --Merbabu (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally I've given up partly due to the edit wars (true also of the Rudd article BTW), and partly because the split left the articles in such a mangled state (at least for a while) that there was no point in editing. But then there was huge debate over whether to put in the JH article a mention of a group reporting him to the International Criminal Court over the Iraq invasion. The debate was unnecessary because it was already (at the time) mentioned in the Howard Govt article. You can read the debate in all its glory at Talk:John Howard/Archive 14, Talk:John Howard/Archive 15 and Talk:John Howard/Archive 16. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You need one all-encompassing article that sums up everything about Paul Keating. Sub articles should only be created when the amount of content is too much for the parent article. Look at the way the American politicians' articles are constructed, for example, George W. Bush. Splitting articles between 'the person' and 'the government' confuses the editors, and confuses the readers.-- Lester  19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However, arguing that Keating (or any other PM) was an all-powerful ruler in charge of and responsible for every act of his government, for better or worse, ignores the reality of cabinet government, the reality of political parties and factions, and various other things. George W Bush is an elected president, with attendant veto powers and the ability to issue executive orders and pardon people amongst other things; Keating is merely head of a government, has no constitutional power outside that government and cannot overrule his own cabinet and party if they disagree with him. Look at what happened to Iemma when he tried, as one example. Orderinchaos 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

One year later
One year later, there is very little to show for the Keating government article, or this article. A few small paragraphs is the most that could be mustered for his entire prime ministership. Splitting the article did not work. There's not enough content for one article. I think the articles should be recombined.-- Lester  08:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Article is notable. Lack of work is not a reason to delete. Please stop digging up long buried battles. Resolved long ago. --Merbabu (talk) 08:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "... Government" articles are a good idea, particularly for Australia's westminster system of govt. They have saved us a lot of edit warring and we have mostly avoided POV-forking. --Surturz (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Image choice
This is a relatively minor concern, but could somebody more qualified than me change the main image on this page? I randomly checked a few of the other pages for Australian Prime Ministers, and none of them used the bust from Prime Minister's Avenue as the central image. It seems especially odd given that the page for Prime Minister's Avenue states that Keating didn't even like his bust. Surely there are enough actual photos of the man available in the public domain for use on the page. It just looks odd, especially when you go to Federal Election pages and there's a bronze statue competing with a flesh-and-blood human being. A minor complaint, I know, but it also seems relatively easy to deal with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.175.181 (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd think there'd be a public domain image of Keating wouldn't you. Find us one. Timeshift (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Any chance of a photo of Mr Keating any time soon? - Byron312

There is a definite need for an actual headshot of Paul Keating, this page alone out of all Australia's Prime Ministers doesn't actual feature an image of that person and so makes this page seem less professional than the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.210.163 (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Continueing on with Timeshift's original complaint, the new Keating photo still seams odd. Firstly, the picture is in a Black and White format, considering that colour picturing or even greyscale was available at the time of his birth. Secondly, his photo isn't at a desk or anything and him in the photo looks like he's a bit drunk.123.2.85.195 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC) PS:(I suggest we change the photo once again.)


 * Are you failing to understand what's already been said? If you can find a FREE image that's better than the one used, by all means show it to us! Timeshift (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this photo of a painting okay to use? I'm not up on WP image use rules. --Surturz (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Crop profile out of this pic, maybe? --Surturz (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal opinions
Looking at this diff, I regard it as injecting a personal opinion into what should be an impartial article. The previous election wins were Hawke's not Keating's, for example. --Pete (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It clearly says that Keating took over as PM in 1991 and then led the party to it's fifth consecutive victory but lost the next one. It is very rare for a party to win 5 terms, even Howard couldn't manage it. It is not an opinion, a party's fifth consecutive victory is a noteable fact and was added in an NPOV way. Timeshift (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've just demonstrated why it's important to you, Mr Liberal-hater. It's not important in a biographical article about Paul Keating, when the previous election wins were Bob Hawke's. --Pete (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See my userbox regarding political opinions. As for the biographical, it is significant to note that Keating didn't just get re-elected, but it was his party's fifth consecutive win, a much harder feat. I fail to see what your objection is to the lead saying Keating became PM in 1991, won 1993 and the fifth for his party, and lost in 1996. What is your issue? EDIT: In addition, the reason why I purposely put myself out there as no fan of the Liberals in your link is because I was keeping uncited negative material off of which page? Ming. Timeshift (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Paul Keating, not the ALP, and not Ming--Pete (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is just a nonsense strawman reply. The article is about Keating's life. Funnily enough, the ALP plays a heavy part in it. If that is your objection I suggest you move on. I do welcome the opinion of others for what really is something too trivial to waste time on. I think anyone of neutral mind would think it is very noteworthy to mention if a leader wins their party a rare fifth term. Not to attempt to violate WP:AGF, but are you consciously trying to find an issue? I am failing to fathom an honest objection to the few extra words. Timeshift (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue with you or rile you out. My honest opinion is that Bob Hawke's election wins are irrelevant in a biographical article about Paul Keating. Trying to make out that Paul Keating won more than one election and John Howard fewer than four is the stuff of spin, and another reason why Wikipedia isn't seen as a top-notch source. Trying to slant Wikipedia to one's own partisan worldview is not, in my opinion, a useful activity --Pete (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How does "After he became prime minister in 1991 he led Labor to it's fifth consecutive victory in the 1993 federal election" confuse the reader? I think anyone who can't understand that is lacking something. It is not spin. Labor has never been in power for five terms, PK got Labor over the line. It also happened to be the first election in three decades where an incumbent government increased it's majority... do you think I should add that to the article? See below - Mkativerata makes perfect sense. I don't want to waste any more time on such a trivial issue. Timeshift (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you raise the subject of confusion. I didn't. My point wasn't clarity, but relevance. The sequence of election wins and losses is useful in an article about the Hawke Government, not so much in Keating's biographical article, especially in the lead para! --Pete (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see another one (an admin) is agreeing with me too - on wikiproject australian politics. Now can we please accept the edits and move on? Thanks in advance. Timeshift (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Hawke's election wins are relevant. When Keating became PM, the government was seen as a dead duck and Keating's elevation didn't change anything. His win in 1993 is remarkable because of that. Also, Keating was very much the key player in the Hawke government and was a significant contributor particularly to the 1990 and 1987 campaigns. So I think it is more than relevant to at least point out that Keating's 1993 win was the ALP government's fifth. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sanity prevails. Timeshift (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit here, Timeshift, - it is indeed notable enough for the lead. But I don't think your "sanity prevails" comment is needed or helpful. It's good just to focus on the content, particularly when things seem to have gone your way. Indeed, such comment undermines the collaboration needed to achieve consensus, a concept on which people at Oz Pol seem to place a lot of importance, but rarely achieve. --Merbabu (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro
Bringing discussion back from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics‎, i've added/shuffled wording so it's clear that it was Labor's and not Keating's fifth consecutive victory. I've also added the comperable longevity of a federal Labor government to the recession as reasons the election was considered "unwinnable". Timeshift (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Declined appointment as a Companion of the Order of Australia
I have clarified Keating's status as the only former post-1975 prime minister not to be appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia. There were several pre-1975 Prime Ministers who were alive in 1975 that were not appointed Companions of the Order: (Frank Forde (1945, no honours), Billy McMahon (1971-72, GCMG instead), John McEwen (1967-68, GCMG instead) and Sir Robert Menzies (1939-41, 1949-66) was appointed as a Knight (the second such appointment), not a Companion of the Order. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I’m not sure this is a notable point. The distinction between pre- and post-1975 Prime Ministers seems a little forced, imo.  The pre-1975 ones who could, potentially, have been awarded an AC were: Forde, Menzies, McEwen, Gorton and McMahon.  Of these, Menzies was AK and KT, and McEwen, Gorton and McMahon were GCMGs.  GCMG has higher precedence than AC, but it's from a different order and they can sit side by side.  Gorton’s pre-existing GCMG didn’t stop him from accepting an AC, announced in the Queen’s Birthday honours in June 1988.  McMahon had died only 10 weeks earlier, on 31 March, and I find it hard to believe he wasn’t at least offered an AC before his death, as these processes take quite a bit longer than that.  But I guess that sort of information will have to await his official biography.


 * So, the list of PMs who could possibly have been awarded the highest level of the Order of Australia (AC or AK), but were not, is: Forde, McEwen, McMahon, Keating (and now Rudd, but he’s only just become an ex-PM so give it a little time before we start considering honours for him; let's assume Gillard is out of contention until such time as she becomes an ex-PM). Forde and Keating were the only ones who had no awards of any kind, but there were various PM who died before 1975 who had no honours either.


 * The fact that Keating declined an AC when it was offered, is the main point. Had he chosen to accept, the above discussion would not exist.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   06:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lizard of Oz
Confused as to why notable, sourced reference to this incident was removed. It may be noted that the term Lizard of Oz has redirected here, unchallenged, since Feb 2006. While it may not be considered notable for peoiple outside of the UK, for us here it is one of the only reasons Keating ever appears in popular media these days. Removing it strikes me of censorship. LHMike (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is particularly notable if one has a career-wide focus. It's not a question of censorship. But, since censorship was raised, I don't get it - wouldn't it reflect more badly on the UK media than on Keating? --Merbabu (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, it is notable to the UK population, so taking a world-wide focus, it is notable. I think the article covers the rest of Keating's career in enough depth that a sentence about this one incident will not 'throw the balance' of it wildly off-centre. LHMike (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that it is a question of balance. Rather one of trivia vs. that of note or consequence. Would you know about it if it wasn't for the catchy "lizard of oz" headline? --Merbabu (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It was on a BBC summary of all the 'breaches' of royal protocol, summarising all the times someone has 'touched' the Queen. Note that Michelle Obama contains the sentence:
 * There were questions raised in the British media regarding protocol when the Obamas met Queen Elizabeth,[133] and Michelle reciprocated a touch on her back by the Queen during a reception, against traditional royal etiquette.[133][134] However, Palace sources denied that any breach in etiquette had occurred.
 * So maybe a sentence outlining the incident should exist? e.g. "Keating's hand notably appeared to make contact with the Queen's back during her visit there in 1992, an event which was picked up particularly by the British press." (but better worded). A sort of 'stick to the facts' compromise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LHMike (talk • contribs) 12:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any article related to either Obama tends to fill up with all manner of trivia and "occupied the media for five minutes" matters. The incident with the Queen was incredibly minor, only got much coverage because the media was obsessed with showing what a rotten time the Queen was having, and wasn't the only thing Keating was known for amongst the British public - his avowed republicanism and hopes to change the flag got significantly more coverage here. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Irrelevant tabloidism  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I read through the discussion regarding this wikipedia article and I have to say, I am still stymied as to the connection between Paul Keating and Lizard Of Oz. There seem to be only oblique and vague references to reasons for a redirect, but I could not see what the connection is. Just asking since I seem to have the only LizardOfOz.whatever domain holding at this time. [GWiens@lizardofoz.net] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.226.67 (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Commentary...
Providing a citations to references that use a term, doesn't make that term OK to use on wikipedia. Hence my removal of the word "notorious" here. There are standards as to what encyclopedic writing is about. To include this goes against wikipedia fundamentals on neutrality and sticking to facts only. If there is not enough comment here, I will seek comment from a broader audience. --Merbabu (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)]

Two years later

 * I've re-added the adverb. I reckon it is bad faith that you agreed to leave the adverb in, then waited a fortnight and reverted it when my back was turned. I wonder how many other times you've used this tactic. --Surturz (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Merbabu, you are removing WP:RS content again. Please provide links to WP policy as to why you are doing so. --Surturz (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's got nothing to do with RS. It's about NPOV. I'm sure we could provide RS for any kind of commentary. If you don't get this, then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia. Actually, I know you get it, you are just trying it on. Happy to go thru the dispute resolution process. --Merbabu (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, are you just going to revert it back in without explanation?? How is this not POV?--Merbabu (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't POV because the adverb does nothing to say whether the recession was inevitable or not. All it notes is that the quote was famous, and adversely affected Keating's reputation - all facts that you agree are not in dispute. Paul Kelly said of the quote "It was perhaps the most stupid remark of his career and it nearly cost him the prime ministership. However — it is largely true — the boom begat the recession.". Now, we could go into a great analysis how Keating was possibly justified in saying what he said, but that it affected his standing badly with the public because it was seen as dodging responsibility and not sympathising with the pain caused by the recession... or we could be succinct and use the adverb "notoriously".
 * If anything, the current text implies the opposite of the facts - immediately after the quote the para goes on to imply that the recession helped his push for the leadership. --Surturz (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the quote wasn't notable it wouldn't be in there in the article. That's implied by its inclusion. I note that your not trying on a similar edit at John Howard's page about his "never ever GST". I haven't got a clue what you mean about the relvance of any inevitability of the recession.
 * The only relevant point being, that to pass judgement on something in wikipedia text is blatant POV and you know it. It is accepted that opinion pieces (which the Evatt piece is) are not reliable sources, and the very least, the opinion should not be quoted as fact. I think this discussion should be noted on the biography and australia projects. --Merbabu (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to be consistent you really should remove the text saying that Keating's Redfern speech is "one of the great Australian speeches." We should also not assert that the "true believers" speech was "memorable". etc. etc. (I've got a vague memory I actually added the redfern speech refs to the article, actually).
 * I'm happy for you to add an adjective or adverb to Howard's "never ever" quote. Go for it.
 * We're are not passing judgement on anything by saying his recession quote was notorious. We are simply acknowledging well-referenced, widely-acknowledged fact. If we were really to be NPOV we would discuss whether Australia genuinely had to have the recession. You are so caught up in the style and wording of things you are ignoring the content. --Surturz (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"recession we had to have"
I have some concerns about this paragraph.

"In private, Keating had argued against interest rate rises during the period, but acquiesced to the recommendations of the public service."

This is cited to Paul Kelly but I don't have access to the book. My understanding is that Keating in fact didn't argue against the interest rate rises but argued for interest rate cuts that might have caused the recession to be less deep than it actually was. In that event he was unable to convince the Governor of the Reserve Bank Bernie Fraser and was also not supported by his Treasury colleagues. According to his advisor Don Russell : "Keating was on the right side of the argument within Treasury and the Reserve Bank when the authorities were slow lifting rates in 1988. He was alone in arguing for lower rates once the economy turned."

So I think we've got the text wrong there. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul Keating and Economic Reform - Removal of Source
The removal of the work about the microeconomic/macroeconomic and exchange rate reform from this page is puzzling. Perhaps fair enough to remove it from Further Reading for the reason you give, although some other texts there are equally narrow in focus. It should however, as a published work about this precise subject, be cited in the references to that subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.205 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It only has been removed from the "Further readings" section, but is cited in the references, as you say it should. I removed it from the further reading section as according to the Manual of Style "the section should be limited in size. Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works". -- ELEKHHT 21:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Debating style
A bit surprised that there is very little on his ferocious debating and extremely mocking style  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * bump. Keating's Redfern address was ranked number 3 by RN listeners behind Martin Luther King and Jesus. . Keating single-handedly added "recalcitrant" to the Australian lexicon. He was one of the best parliamentary performers ever. I certainly think a short section on his colourful use of language is in order. --Surturz (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Scumbags! --Merbabu (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - --Merbabu (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to re-open discussion on this point. Keating was one of Australia's greatest parliamentary performers and set benchmarks in the use of question time to pressure the other side of the chamber. His turn of phrase and colorful language are legendary. Does anyone object to greater focus on this aspect of his career? P.S just for fun, here is one of my favorites "he's the salmon that jumps on the hook" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI_k2PIKg0g . ''' Flat Out   Let's discuss it  06:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Early life and education
paul worked for the Sydney County Council not Transgrid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadowsett (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Piggery Scandal
Why is there no mention in this article of the piggery scandal? It was a significant issue that nearly triggered an inquiry, and was never fully resolved.

I would seriously question the neutrality of this article in general, actually. Most of it is quite adulatory and there is scant mention of many of his more controversial activities (e.g. exerting pressure to overrule the Immigration Minister and secure citizenship for Hilaly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.133.206 (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"extensive contacts" used to gain Blaxland preselection
I noticed this sentence in the article... "Using his extensive contacts, Keating eventually gained the Labor endorsement for the seat of Blaxland in the western suburbs of Sydney, and was elected to the House of Representatives in 1969 when he was 25 years old." The sentence as a whole is referenced but the reference does not mention the use of extensive contacts to gain preselection. Whilst i'm not necessarily doubting it is the case, we obviously need a reference for such a statement, so i've added a cn tag. I've looked on google for another reference, but the only ones seem to be those that mirror the wikipedia article. Timeshift (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)