Talk:Peter Costello/Archive 1

ʔI wrote the version of this article with the expression "radical Christian". I meant by this that he was a Christian who was also a social radical (a common species in the 1970s), not that he was a theological radical or fundamentalist. So far as I know his Christianity has always been mainstream. Adam 03:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * yes. that's why i was reverting. Xtra 07:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Political and Economic Ideology
A more detailed analysis of his political and economic ideology would be great. If anyone has that kind of information, I would great appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.15.169 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

dollar sweets role
From memory PC did not actually represent the company legally but was merely a junior. The actual representation was by a senior QC(whose name escapes me). Please provide evidence to disabuse me, otherwise will redit the page to display this fact. TransylvanianTwist 04:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Costello played a large part in putting the case together, but it was argued by Alan Goldberg, now Justice Goldberg. (from Shaun Carney's biography of Costello). (that does not mean that he did not represent them) Xtra 06:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Its just that at the moment the text reads as though PC was responsible, intellectually and actually, for the prosecution which as I thought, was not true. The text should reflect this. TransylvanianTwist 07:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

- PC was junior counsel and Michael Kroger was the solicitor. Costello and Kroger were the architects of the Dollar Sweets strategy and did have intellectual responsibility. "Junior counsel" doesn't mean you make the coffee, you know.

income redistribution
From what I have read over the past two decades the income distribution has only, and relentlessly, widened. Perhaps someone can provide evidence to contrary ( perhaps some census data?). Otherwise the text cannot stand as is. TransylvanianTwist 03:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

- Please see my comments below for contrary evidence from the ABS.

Photo
why is there no photo for this article? This wikipedia mirror has one, so why doesn't the original page? im confused. THE KING 12:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a photo, but it was deleted. Xtra 13:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cancer??
There was a brief mention in Saturday's Age about Costello having announced he has cancer. But I've been unable to find any other references to this. I assume this was the journo having a bit of a wank - or maybe I misread it. Can anybody shed any light? JackofOz 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Matt Price's column in the Oz (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17123066%255E12854,00.html) may be the one you're thinking of, but like you I can't find anything other than a throwaway line. I'm going to contact Mr. Price and see what the story really was.--Robert Merkel 04:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Doh! The Deputy PM is Mark Vaile, not Peter Costello, who had a melanoma removed from his back last week . --Robert Merkel 04:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That must be it. The report definitely referred to "Peter Costello", not "the Deputy PM", so no thanks to the journo for confusing the Deputy PM with the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.  Cheers JackofOz 10:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

POV
why has:
 * The part about Labor debt been removed
 * there been numerous unsourced changes to say the opposite from what has been always there
 * Why is there now a value judgement that he has had an easy run when during his term there were numerous international economic crises.

I think this is not neutral and should be reverted back. Xtra 07:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * has been always there - well actually has been there from August 2005 when the comments were originally changed with an edit summary of ...for evidence against this, and supporting my claim, email me. I didn't intend to remove the quoting of debt but the way the whole paragraph was presented was POV. I'm politically neutral but I know arse kissing when I see it. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Labor spent their way out of a global recession. They went into debt to build infrastructure and create jobs. Any responsible government would've done the same thing. Labor just got caught at a bad time in history. Let's not sit here and write biased Wiki articles which the laymen will interpret in favour of a specific political party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.15.169 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Gay Comments
Why were these removed? I have put them back. They are verified with a link, no need to edit unless one has a POV against the truth. Lefty on campus 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --
 * The difference between the original pro gay article and the twisted, heavily POV addition to this article is verging on vandalism. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

-It's vandalism to cite a pro-gay article? No wonder this site has a reputation. Lefty on campus 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --

The statement by Costello is factual-and undeniably controversial. Why cant it be left in?TransylvanianTwist 05:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The original addition by User talk:203.87.64.214 was:
 * In 2006, Peter Costello angered Gay Rights groups by insisting that "gays should be satisfied they are no longer imprisoned for being gay." That this decriminalisation of homosexuality is the only right they should be entitled to and would not support gay marriage or civil unions.
 * which is rather more POV than the revised direct quote attributed to Costello:
 * "I think we do recognize the rights of gay and lesbian people in Australia: We do not criminalize [their] conduct or behavior."
 * I still think this needs more work if it is included as Costello was talking in reference to current government policy regarding the legal definition of marriage. If the quote is true it was probably ill considered words but I'm not even sure it is noteworthy for this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And the original article had a fullstop after Australia rather than a colon, which joins the statements and changes the context somewhat. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll admit my first attempt may have been skewed, but I've added another link (from an Australian newspaper which verfies the quote (and makes the same interpretation)). I do believe it is important to include on this page as Costello is in the running to be Australia's next PM and views on social issues will play a significant role. One should add his pro-abortion-pill policy to in all fairness, too. Lefty on campus 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --
 * I think it's best to leave it with the full stop as quoted my the newspaper, changing that would be changing what was reported as FACT. 'They were not separate statements' so it would be innacurate and NPOV to position it as such. Lefty on campus 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --
 * think it's best to leave it with the full stop as quoted my the newspaper, changing that would be changing what was reported as FACT. 'They were not separate statements' so it would be innacurate and NPOV to position it as such. Lefty on campus 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --
 * Thankyou. Satisfied. Lefty on campus 06:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --

I have copyedited the latest addition to provide more background. I agree they were inappropriate remarks but the article needs to report the facts not our interpretation or personal views. The fact you vandalised my user page with filth doesn't speak well for your attitude to those who don't 100% agree with you but I accept that this is particularly contentious to some. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Struck out incorrect statement. Vandalism was from another IP address. Even when you edit anonymously, it helps a lot if you sign your posts with ~ Garglebutt / (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I don't always stay logged in and never notice, I'm using a Beta Firefox version it's buggy, but gets the job done! No, that wasn't me vandalising, unless you count my POV interpretation of the article! Try WhoIS to locate the IP. Will Sign other comments, too. Lefty on campus 06:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC) --
 * I'm using Deer Park alpha 2 (the next Firefox) and it hasn't been too bad. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote 'angered gay rights campaigners during a lecture...' though true is very limited (and prob. weaselly worded). Im neither 'gay' nor a 'rights campaigner' but I find PC's words and attitude offensive. So will change text to 'many Australians' OK? TransylvanianTwist 05:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

General Comments
- Costello was never a member of the ALP, youth wing or otherwise. He associated with various ALP Right and Liberals on campus (as they had more in common with each other than the Maoists running AUS), but never signed up to the Labor Party.

- To the extent that the Keating Govt had reduced economic credibility in the lead up to the '96 election, Costello probably deserves some credit. His 'job' on Minister Ros Kelly over the SportsRorts affair claimed her scalp.

- Re: claim of widening gaps between rich and poor, what is the source? There is ABS evidence to the contrary: http://www.cis.org.au/Exechigh/Eh2002/EH9101.htm

- "Whether this was due to luck or good management..."? Come on. A *decade* of luck? There is no justification for this backhander and it should be removed.

- The line about Costello's support for the republic and "It may be coincidental that at the time this policy was believed to be more popular" is another cheap shot with no basis and should be deleted. Costello has never stated any other position, was a supporter of the republic at the ConCon when much of his own party were backing Howard's line.

- Re: Costello not having his political mettle tested - what about the GST and its implementation? Biggest tax reform in Australia's history, mother of all scare campaigns, practically every price in the country changing on one day?

- I'm not his biggest fan, but this article seems to have enough digs and slights in it to make it unfair to the subject, IMHO.

Yarraside 12:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

- It's not a decade of luck it's a decade of high economic growth rates in China and India. We're riding their boom with the rest of the world.

Membership of Young Labor
I don't edit articles on Australian politicians any more, but I would like to know why the reference to Costello's membership of Young Labor in the 1970s has been deleted. It is a well-known fact which he has not denied, it was refered to in Hansard by a Liberal member recently, and not denied, it is proved by the photo in the article, and it is clearly relevant to his biography. Adam 09:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I have read, Costello never joined the Labor Party - either senior or junior branches. His only connection was that at university he campaigned for and was elected with an organisation affiliated loosely with the Labor Party. Xtra 05:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If I was a Christian Student and I wanted to run for President of Monash Union and the only way I could would be to run with a political group, and that group ran with me and put my picture on their group photo does not make me a member of their group. Xtra 05:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I will ask some of the many people I know who were around at that time. Adam 05:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Michael Kroger: He was never a Labor Party member and never a supporter of the Labor Party although Michael Danby and some others are still trying to find membership records alleging he joined somewhere. Well good luck to them. They've been doing that for the last 20 years." Snottygobble 05:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Links:
 * Radio National
 * Peter Costello: from campus to caucus
 * Peter Costello: The New Liberal
 * Rise and Rise of Costello


 * None of these indicate him being a Labor member, moreso showing him leading a crusade against communist-dominated student organisations. michael talk 05:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections to myself removing text that states him being either involved with, or a member of, Labor organisations? michael talk 05:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it might warrant some mention of his involvement in student politics, but having read some of the sources cited above, I'd have no objection whatsoever to that being removed. Rebecca 06:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No-one has claimed he was an ALP member. He may or may not have been a member of Young Labor or the Labor student group at Monash. But it is indisputable that he was a Labor supporter at that time, as is clearly shown by the photo. Kroger is hardly a reliable commentator on such subjects. Adam 06:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So do I. He's got a very interesting history there. michael talk 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed Kroger is not a reliable source for the assertion that Costello has never been a Labor Party member. It seems to me though that he is a most excellent source for the assertion that whether Costello has ever been a Labor party member remains a matter of some dispute. Snottygobble 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No-one has claimed he was an ALP member. Please pay attention. Adam 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. Sorry. Snottygobble 12:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The photo and accompanying text included in the image uploaded to the article shows that Costello was not just a member of, but an officebearer in, the Social Democratic Students Association of Voctoria, which was an affiliate of Australian Young Labor (Victorian Branch). He has never denied this fact, to which all the other people in the photo (among many others) can testify. I really don't see how the veracity of this can be challenged. I will change the text so that it more precisely reflects these facts. Adam 00:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, no I won't, because I don't edit articles on Australian politicians any more. Someone else should do so. Adam 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to reopen an old thread, but I believe Adam is right. I'm trying to find the reference for a previous defamation case brought by Costello and Tony Abbott that alleged that someone said their wives (then girlfriends) dated them to draw them in to a different political party. The findings in the case would illuminate. Can anyone help me with the case reference? MojoTas 05:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore that - here is the definitive court decision: neither Costello nor Abbott were ever members of the ALP: [] MojoTas 05:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Bias
This article has been flagged by news.com.au along with others, Liberals hit back at Wikipedia 'dirt' file as possibly biased. Just thought I'd give a heads up. Iorek85 00:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The person supposedly involved has denied such claims, see, also you can see above he is sticking to his policy against editing articles on Australian politicions directly Nil Einne 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite a while since I edited this article. Any bias in it now is the work of others. The curious thing about that article is that, despite the headline, no actual Liberals are quoted, as "hitting back" or anything else. Adam 06:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just ignore it, news.com.au should be the last people reporting bias. (Truth 06 09:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

Speculation
The section headed "For as long as the party wants Howard, or two terms in office?" is mostly speculation and should be deleted. Adam 09:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rewrote. Still a tiny amount of speculation (that he looks set to remain Treasurer until the next election at this stage), but I doubt anybody could object to that. --Robert Merkel 09:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

comments on muslims and islamic countries
His criticism of extremist muslims and islamic countries who do not have seperation of church and state should be added, no? (Truth 06 09:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC))

Pro-choice policy and support of the removal of Health Ministers veto
Peter Costello's pro-choice policy and his support for the removal of the Health Minister's veto over a medical drug has played a big part of his career of late and is something not included in this article. This being a big issue in polotics warrents a paragraph on the subject. Jarryd Moore 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Media reports on government editing this article
Media have reported that someone in a government office removed "Captain Smirk" from this article on 28-June-2007. http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/pms-staff-edited-wikipedia/2007/08/23/1187462443308.html However if you look at the edit here it can be seen that it was a simple act of removing vandalism (or at least silliness). Autobiography clearly states that vandalism can be removed by the subject (or his associates). I think there was nothing wrong with the edit, and it's a silly media beatup. Accordingly I have removed the entire section from the article. Peter Ballard 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, midday abc radio news reported many articles have been editted, with the traces ending up at the PM's office, and that wikipedia plans to ban any edits coming from governmental offices. About time too. Timeshift 02:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it? I wonder what this website  says about that? Shot info  02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a feeling you're one of them. On-topic, what point are you trying to make in your above post? Timeshift 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He is making the point that the main page states that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Is your position that certain sections of the community should be barred from editing simply because of who they are, or where they work? Kevin 03:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Dept Def action appears to be directed at people editing while at work, it doesnt stop people editing from home, as such its not against the anyone can edit context anyway. Gnangarra 03:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Unless he mis-spoke, Timeshift was commenting on Wikipedia having plans to ban editing, not the Defence Dept. Kevin 03:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The news made the point that edits from the Prime Minister's office had exceeded a certain threshold contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. Regardless, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You can go to another location. But for COI (conflict of interest), ban the entire public service and all levels of government from editting wikipedia IMHO. See http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&ned=au&q=wikipedia for news info. At least wikipedia will be doing this to some extent. Don't like it Prime Ministerial servants? Tough :-) Timeshift 03:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Exceeded a certain threshold contrary to Wikipedia guildlines" now which one would that be. I would like to know because this media seems to know more about WP than most of it's editors.  BTW, I suggest that you review this policy before engaging in any smears against myself or any other editors that stand for Wikipedia and what Wikipedia stand for.  If you think I have a COI, then I suggest you review WP:COI and go to COI/N.  If you don't then please assume some good faith and No personal attacks please.   Shot info  05:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added the online source template for the above media reference to this article. Peter Campbell 12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm missing something here please tell me, but since when was it a big deal for someone to remove clear-cut vandalism ("Captain Smirk") from an article? If it wasn't somebody from the Liberal Party themselves it could be you, myself or anybody else on a "sweep" of an article. Regardless of where a person works, if the edits do *not* significantly alter the article's NPOV then I see it a little heavy handed to ban government department IP's from editing the wiki. Removing "Captain Smirk" from an article, or adding "allegedly" to a page is unlikely to breach NPOV guidelines. SMC 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection
Probably it is better to protect this page from new users and/or IPs rather than the entire Community.  Shot info  02:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The IP edit referred to by the SMH was a vandalism revert anyway. Now that the article was mentioned in the media though, a semi-protect will keep down the inevitable IP vandalism. Kevin 03:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it should be protected from everybody until the election date is announced. Auroranorth 04:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you're not serious. I've no objection to a full block for a couple of days while this news blows over, but registered users should otherwise be allowed to improve this article at any time. Peter Ballard 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter costello's GST support
I reject any notion that Costello was a huge fan of the GST or that he whole-heartdly supported it. In George Megalonegis' book The Longest Decade, page 239, he described it as having 'been invested with some snake-oil qualities.' The quote is repeated back to him in this interview:

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/transcript_247.asp

I would also point out the irony that Costello became Treasurer at 38, the same age that John Howard became Tresurer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjblair (talk • contribs) 10:53, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Please add interest rates and inflation rate
Please add a paragraph to the article about the interest rates and inflation rate while Mr Costello has been Treasurer. Maybe something like this:


 * As Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello has presided over a period of mostly low inflation and mostly low interest rates. The inflation rate has remained at or below 4%, except for a breakout to 6% in 2000/2001. Interest rates have remained below 8%.

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

Inflation data: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/historical_cpi_data.xls

Thanks.

220.253.88.104 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please will someone who knows world economics create a comparison between the levels of Australian interest rates over Costello's period and those of other mainstream Western nations such as the US and UK? It would be brilliant if that person could also compare Australian, US and UK rates to each other in the Hawke/Keating era. I would like to understand how Australian rates in the two periods varied from the bigger world markets in their own respective time frames. (I do believe that when John Howard was treasurer, we didn't have the same type of interest rates as we do today, but that comparable types of rates were very high.) Thanks. Bernstein2 14:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias?
Is it just me, or is this article biased? Leaving aside the captain smirk issue, it seems to me to be highly biased. Can a wiki admin please edit this to NPOV?Dezza91 04:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you edit it, after all, this is Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia that Anybody can edit.  Shot info  04:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is the problem. Anyone, even including people located in the PM's office can edit this, if they are a user. Im not making any accusations, i dont know what they've even edited, but under the section of 'Life in Government' it says nothing of the other economic reforms which the Howard Government claims to have made. Im not an economist, but if the GST is the only reform that they've made, apart from Workchoices, then it would seem that Howards claim of expertise in micro and macro economic management is misplaced.Dezza91 13:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Rather than just having a 'life in government' section, it would be good to have a section specifically about his role as treasurer: what he has achieved, for better or worse, in that specific role, how he is regarded by media commentators etc. Stevage 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

social democrats image
Shouldn't this image be removed? It is not relevant to his career. Also the fair use tag states that it is low resolution, when this is hardly the case at 2297 × 3388 pixel, file size: 3.73 MB --Astrokey 44 22:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Timeshift 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly think the image should remain. As the article develops, an important part of it will be shopwing how Costello moved from young Labor activist to neo-conservative Liberal.  What we really need is a recent image of Costello.  Any Melbourne based Wikipedians could probably catch him down at a Higgins shopping centre over the next month or so.  --Roisterer 23:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the image should go, and have for a while. It's blatantly POV - he was not at all notable for his activities in the Labor Party, the image is not well known, and it seems there entirely to make a point. Rebecca 23:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT seems to be overrun to prove a point in this regard. Nevertheless, it's removal is relatively low priority (IMO).   Shot info  00:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I can't think of any senior members of either party who were at some point involved with the "other side", even if it was before their earlier political career.  Plus, and I know this is not a rationale for keeping it, it's interesting.  Lankiveil 02:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Brendan Nelson comes to mind. If you count minor parties, there is Peter Garrett, and of course Cheryl Kernot :). Returning to the topic, I agree the photo gives undue weight and should probably be removed. Peter Ballard 11:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My view - the reference in the text is important, especially as it may give pointers to his early political thinking and his retention of some socially left views (though there are other influences on this also). It should be left as is. However the image over-emphasizes the importance of this social democrat phase in the Costello "story". A more appropriate (but more boring) image would be Costello delivering a Budget, or a joint shot of Costello/Howard to reference the leadership issue. If someone has a free image of these or similar I'd support replacing the social democrat one. Euryalus 03:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur that a photo of Costello in the Reps should be included, and should be above the social democrat image. It's just getting one, that will be the problem.  Lankiveil 06:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC).
 * That picture should stay as it's interesting. the WP:WEIGHT problem is that there aren't enough other photos on the page. --Scott Davis Talk 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But we don't delete stubs after a certain amount of time do we. I recall policy somewhere that says that there is no time limit on fixing issues such as this. Timeshift 06:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

These images are quite balanced ;-) Timeshift 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the image. I've cleaned it up, PNGed it, and reduced the resolution. Recurring dreams sensibly relocated it to the more contextually appropriate earlier section. It is relevant to his Early life and/or Political provenance --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove. While it is the only photo in the article, I still think it should be removed. It is waaaaaaay WP:Undue weight, interesting or not. Do we include 1000 words on his early student politics? No, then why that photo? Peter Ballard 04:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Scott Davis. The problem isn't the image, the problem is the lack of others. Timeshift 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with both Peter and Timeshift. We need more photos, but we cannot indefinately say "We need more photos".  For the moment, I believe the photo stays.  If in a couple of months, there are no new photos, then it's obvious that there is no additional photos and per WP:WEIGHT it should be deleted.  I think the end of the year would be a satisfactory time (IMO) to give enough time to allow editors to get additional photos into the article.  Shot info 04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing
I have removed the following text:
 * In the last few months there have been media reports accusing the Federal Government of using public servants to modify the Wikipedia pages of John Howard, Peter Costello and other government members and departments to make the entries seem more favorable to the government. In the case of Peter Costello this had involved the constant removal of one of his "nicknames" (Captain Smirk) from his Wikipedia page. The government has denied being behind such changes and it is not certain if people such as Peter Costello have played a direct role in the modification of such internet pages.

I do not see how the vandalism of a wikiarticle are relevant to the article subject. Should we put on the article of Jesus Christ that this the most vandalised article on Wikipedia? Alex Bakharev 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. See the history of the guy who is adding it. A beat up to say the least.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question regarding this attitude wikipedia takes to mentioning public figures who mention wikipedia, and is a pure hypothetical. What if the President of the US set out his next term of office, one being to go on a crusade in taking wikipedia off the internet? Would this also not be allowed on their wikipedia page? Timeshift 06:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My take, mentioning wikipedia is nn, a crusade to take Wikipedia off the internet would be notable. Two different things, two different notabilities, two different responses by editors here in Wikipedia.  Shot info 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Costello?
Current picture please. Not some hippie picture from nineteen sixteen-whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.44.126 (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the only image available to us. The image is used on a fair-use premise, which is that a replacement cannot be found, which it cannot as it was of young Costello, and without a time machine is impossible. As it is possible, although unlikely, to be able to take a current picture of Costello with your own camera, we cannot use just any old image. The image must be taken by yourself, or somebody who is willing to use the appropriate permissions, such as creative commons, found commonly on flickr. Unfortunately though, nobody has been able to find any free images of Costello (or Howard) as yet. If you can find one, you are most welcome to help out the project. Timeshift 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is called WP:BLP. It applies across the project...not just articlespace.  But since our IP has not refactored his comments, lets make it more about the article, rather than just trying to make a point.  Shot info 06:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why has wikipedia degraded to a point where arguments are substituted to look at WP:THIS ad nauseum? He asked the question, I answered it, why can't we do it that way rather than all these wannabe admins taking it upon themselves to revert what cannot be deemed without a doubt as vandalism. If you have an issue with someone, then take it up with them or an admin. We do not need vigilantes on wikipedia talk pages. Timeshift 06:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeeze, it's up to us editors to enforce policy. If you don't like it, just don't respond, it's really that easy.  Shot info 06:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to reply to the IP to get it clear to him and other readers why we have only one, very dodgy photo. All good :-) Timeshift 06:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The pollies are currently on the election campaign trail, visiting school fetes and community fairs. Maybe that's a good opportunity for Wikipedians to snap new photos of them! -- Lester  00:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That image I restored to the full version as its here under fairuse we cant make derivatives. Additionally as its appears to be a memo from the young ALP and not a poster I think the licensing is wrong and that the image may actually be copyrighted. Does anyone have anything that can support the retention of the image otherwise its got to go. Gnangarra 17:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Will people stop claiming that the Social Democrats picture is POV. It is an image. It is a representation of something that was or is. i.e. a fact and as such can't possibly be a POV. Alans1977 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's undue weight. Plus it looks nothing like the current Costello, so what's the point of including it? Peter Ballard 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it easily looks like him (especially with that jaw structure) and it doesn't add any more weight than most other images in most other wikipedia articles. Alans1977 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not then add the Howard/Costello headjob photo? Peter Ballard 05:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is a part of the article that the headjob photo is relevant to I would say go for it, if you want to. Somehow I don't think there is though. Alans1977 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could fit in the 'Leadership aspirations' section if you wanted. Alans1977 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But seriously... as the photo stands it's too small to recognise PC. Apparently we can't trim it. So either we put in the huge photo (way undue weight), or a photo when the only thing that stands out is the words "Social Democrats" - undue weight again. Plus, if the source is the young ALP, there are obvious COI issues with the contribution. Can you imagine a newspaper doing a profile on PC and using that photo? It'd be a joke. Better no photo than that one. Peter Ballard 06:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PC is easily recognisable once the picture is clicked on and still recognisable even in its thumb. As per COI, it's an image, images don't/can't have a COI. They just are. Finally yes I can imagine a newspaper using that photo, I've seen them use a lot worse. Alans1977 06:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Seriously? In a profile of Costello, as the only photo to offer? I disagree. Peter Ballard 11:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take this time to make two points. Nobody forced him to join the social democrats, he chose to on his own accord. Second, a comparison to headjob photos are done as strokes of luck with the camera and giving the impression something is happening that is not - unlike this leaflet. Third, I find it quite surprising that Peter Ballard seems to think that just because a photo of early life looks very different, it somehow makes it less worthy of inclusion...? Timeshift 07:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from the hair, I don't think the photo looks that different. As you say though, that does not make any more or less worthy of inclusion. Alans1977 07:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * TS, it's all about WP:Undue Weight. If we so badly need the photo, let's crop it so we can actually make out Costello. If we're not allowed to crop it, then it's not free and we shouldn't be using it anyway. Peter Ballard 11:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be cropping any fair-use images. That doesn't mean that we can't have any fair-use images with appropriate rationales. You know that peter... Timeshift 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No I didn't know. When you get a piece of GNU-free software you can edit it how you want. I thought the same should be the case with free use photos... Peter Ballard 00:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok Peter, my apologies. For clarification, fair-use images are still copyrighted, but being used with a fair-use rationale. Timeshift 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:Undue Weight does not say anything of any use about this image. WP:Undue Weight is more concerned with making sure that viewpoints held by small minorities are not presented in such a way that they appear to be held by more people than they are. Alans1977 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

It does apply to pictures and details.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
"always ready to stab him in the back" - please refrain from WP:BLP violations.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

middle-class?
It is mentioned in the early life section that Costello 'was born in Melbourne into a middle-class family of practicing Christians', although it also notes that he went to a grammar school, studied law and and holds a prominent political position as federal treasurer (as well as his brother being CEO of WorldVision). I find the label 'middle-class' to be somewhat inappropriate in this instance, and is irrelevant as it only seems to serve as a political image boost. the class position of Kevin Rudd and John Howard is never mentioned, so why is it here? For argument's sake, he is also regarded as a member of the 'New Right', which typically denies evidence of a class system. Please remove.better_in_scarlet (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. You raise an interesting point but I can't see how the 'middle class' tag is either inaccurate or politically biased. Costello was raised in a middle-income suburb with a middle-income family (his father was a teacher). They weren't poor (as you indicate, he went to a grammar school) but nor were they part of the Melbourne social or financial elite (ie. the upper class). If you have any sources that suggest Costello was actually from an upper-class background, feel free to add them to the article or discuss them here. Otherwise, 'middle class' seems a pretty accurate description.   Euryalus (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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

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

Polling
In regards to Auspoll (Ch7/Sky) polling, it was the only exit polling of the 2007 election. Shot info seems to think it's ok not to point this out. Par for the course I suppose. Timeshift (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, add in the source that says it's the "only exit polling of the 2007 election" otherwise it's called original research. A wikipedian of your experience should know this basic tenit of editing.  FWIW, the context of the sentence is poorly written (ie/ the inference that the exit polling influence Costello's decision making) and needs a source to support it.  I'm going to leave it there for a while though to welcome other editors to review, but if it cannot be reworded, I will remove it altogether.  Finally, I would like to thank you for your obvious restraint in immediately engaging in personal attacks when somebody edits your edits.  Shot info (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a google search of australian 2007 election polling showing the absence of all other polling would satisfy your strange desires on this point? And no, you won't remove it all together. Timeshift (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What part of "Original" in the policy WP:OR don't you understand? It's clear that you think that my you performing the research and then applying it without a source, isn't original research.  Something that (fortunately) policy disagrees with you on.  And unless you or somebody else produces the source that shows that Costello was influenced in his decision making by the exit polling....then it is unsupported trivia pushing a POV....something again policy disagrees with.  Care for a third strike...O hang on...WP:NPA as well I'm sure will be coming up ...  Shot info (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Exit polling stays. And who says it influenced his decision? THAT is your OR... Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read for comprehension, my reasons are articulated above. BTW, it's my opinion (POV) not OR what I read from the sentance.  I'm not saying that you intended on doing this, but it's how your edit reads.  Hence why I'm leaving it for other editors to review...something I note you have a real problem with...  Shot info (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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