User talk:Observoz/Carr, Iemma, Rees NSW Labor Government

Neutrality has been disputed, so please provide notes for additions to new article Observoz (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * At present the question is whether, and how, the article should exist to begin with. (As others have said at the Politics talk page, there is no precedent for the article in its present form.) Then we move on with a strategy for designing the article based on reliable sources. I would suggest the AJPH's Political Chronicle as a good starting point for this, as it's an academic source and comprehensive, therefore likely to be more neutral than a select grab of media articles. Factiva can be used to support and extend AJPH's coverage, as can other academic sources where they exist. Orderinchaos 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * :Thanks for comments. I agree the article can be improved by refinement at this early stage. I considered The Howard Government as the precedent. Also note, this article does not only draw on select media articles, it also references academic book on Carrs' Private Diaries By Marilyn Dodkin etc, biographical information provided on the topic area at the homepages of the NSW Parliament and Australian Labor Party etc ICAC findings are referenced to source etc etc. I agree however that the long list of media references can be improved by further sourcing Observoz (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC).


 * I think what I was meaning was with regards to structure rather than individual facts. The article seems to lack balance in its present form (and as others have noted, needs to be split into the three governments). Using a comprehensive source as a starting point would definitely help achieve this balance. Orderinchaos 11:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The present structure is merely sequential, so I can't see an argument for inherent "imbalance" in the structure. The topic area I think should be kept together because of the continuity of the key players and political policies etc involved (Government and Opposition). Bob Carr and Morris Iemma both retired mid term and in the Westminster system it is essentially the Party who governs, not the individuals). As for balance in the material provided, that is a matter for consensus discussion. Could you help me with the link to the Politics Talk page you are referring to, I can't find it? Observoz (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually (as a student of politics) the Westminster system is party-blind. The Governor asks a person to form a government and upon doing so is given a commission and styled Premier. If that person resigns, the entire process resumes. This is why there is often a substantial reshuffle when a new premier ascends (although for various reasons it's usual for the old cabinet and new premier to coexist for about a week while the details are hammered out, or in the bizarre case of Queensland, sometimes everyone gets sacked and the new Premier and Deputy Premier split all roles between them for a few days - mind you, Whitlam once did this at federal level, but it was never tried again.) Orderinchaos 08:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed your question at the end :) WT:AUSPOL is our discussion place. Orderinchaos 08:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean, from a strictly legal point of veiw, which is why I qualified my statement with the word "essentially". The Australian Constitution is indeed Party Blind, but The Westminister system (in practice) in far from. It relies heavily on Convention etc, as you know, and Australian Parliaments operate in many ways quite differently from the letter of their constitutions - ie on paper, a Premier lasts at the Governor's pleasure etc, but in practice a Premier lasts at his Party's pleasure. This article reflects that reality Observoz (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that the system worked exactly as it does now (for the most part) in all of the State parliaments for several decades in an era where there were no parties at all. (It worked more confusingly, that is for certain, but the same conventions applied.) In essence some of the issues that arose then theoretically occur now when a party is in minority government in the modern system. I don't think we should reflect "reality" as much as we should reflect reliable sources, per WP:V "verifiability is not truth". Orderinchaos 17:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Article name and structure
I don't think the article should be split. The govt under each of the leaders has more in common than not in common - ie, there is enough continuity to keep them together (ditto for say the Hawke-Keating govt). Perhaps there might be an argument based under article length if the ever got to be too big, but it's far from that position now.

As for the name, i offer NSW Labor Government (1995-present) as a vastly improved but admittedly still imperfect title. --Merbabu (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that name, though it should probably be New South Wales Labor Government (1995–present). Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think they should be separate, and I also think the colour of the government should be excluded from the title (as Wikipedia should as neatly as possible reflect the official title - the "Rees Government" is the current government's correct, legal name in terms of its commission from the Governor.) The Governor doesn't care what party the Premier hails from, the Premier is the Premier whether they are Labor, Liberal or something else, they have no more and no less standing than any past or future Premier at the time they were/are/will be in power, and their administration are members of the Executive Council in the same way. All the colour represents is who has the most seats in the Lower House.
 * The other issue here is that by saying that administrations of 2 or 3 years standing should not have their own articles simply because they follow on from another, what happens in other states? For example, in WA, O'Connor followed on from Court (I), Lawrence followed on from Dowding who followed on from Burke, etc. In Victoria, Brumby followed on from Bracks. Federally speaking, we had Holt->Gorton->McMahon, two of whom lasted less than Iemma. In most of these cases, and NSW is not excepted from this, the way in which the government exercises power and issues of public perception have been different between different premierships (let's not forget that although the premier themselves often doesn't have much power, they are there basically because they have the confidence of the majority of the parliamentary party at the time, and in highly factionalised parties this often reflects particular alliances, splits etc which impact directly on policy, direction, etc.)
 * Iemma for example was seen as a marker where the non-aligned Right lost control of the party to the "Terrigals". This period was characterised by consistent friction with the party executive and membership, which ultimately destroyed the administration and some of its key players. (Iemma very, very nearly became the first serving Premier since Jack Lang to be expelled from the NSW Labor Party). Rees (a Left) got in because the Right split in such a complex and nasty way that they'd rather have a Leftie (who it should be noted did have relevant personal friendships with some key Right people) than one of their own who had friends they didn't like, and essentially he and his allies was more acceptable to the party structure than his predecessor. This period has been characterised by news breaking events of the third kind, a seeming lack of control as the remains of the party near-split continues to resolve itself non-amicably, and people in the Left shut out since Carr's departure returning to the fore. Speaking from a state where the Left is the largest (but not controlling) faction in Labor and the Right actually formally, permanently split in two a number of years ago, I find NSW politics quite bizarre personally, but yeah. Orderinchaos 08:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the question of precedent for the article, I would say it doesn't count for much saying that combining the three Premierships would be a "first" given that Wikipedia is much younger than the NSW Labor government itself. I agree with Merbabu that an eventual expansion in article length could make a split desirable (and there is certainly room for expansion of this article), but in the meantime I feel that a reader is better served on the subject matter by having access to a resource which takes the full period into account - particularly given the brevity of both the Iemma and Rees periods. For the timebeing, the combined article is appropriate given that the Labor Party's administration of the State is ongoing (unlike say, the historical period of Menzies through McMahon). Observoz (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why was the Menzies->McMahon period any different? It was the same parties in power in a coalition, none of them came to power at an election, and one of them lost their only one. It was certainly seen as a very long ongoing government by those who embraced the It's Time mantra. Orderinchaos 17:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the differences would be: the Carr-Rees period is not yet complete; the Carr-Rees period is still considerably shorter than the Menzies-McMahon period; and perhaps the NSW Government can be treated as a lesser category of importance than the Federal Government? Essentially, I think readers benefit from a one stop shop on this topic, until such time as the content is enlarged to a point where it is overwhelming. Mind you, in principle, I don't see a problem with a "Liberal Government 1949-1972" article, other than inordinate lengthObservoz (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm from a much smaller state (WA) and I'd still argue *our* premiers merit an article each. In fact, several would merit two, and one who arguably served a contiguous 8-year term would need two separate articles (not enough room to explain why) unless some real creativity was applied (something our sources don't really give us room for). The other factor is we are falling way out of step with our ministry articles if we start doing the government ones differently. Having readers having to jump all over the place to comprehend the political picture and a bunch of names on the same page who only belong to one short part of the story is also not terribly desirable. (I should note here as well that I'm thinking in part of this, because of my career, from an educational perspective rather than a strictly political one - what can be conveyed best to readers? Books have chapters. There's no reason we need to cram all our coverage into one.) Another point - how would, under this model, the 3rd Goss term going into Borbidge in Queensland be handled? It was not only the same term of government but there was no transition of members of Parliament, so there was continuity despite the parties being opposite from each other. Another issue is Holman, who switched sides but continued as Premier (same could be applied to Hughes as PM or arguably Gair in QLD too.) Orderinchaos 18:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One final point for the night - "considerably shorter" etc, where are we adhering to WP:OR in this? It's a slippery slope and one I'd rather like us to avoid. The actual sources name the government by Premier. WP:V and WP:RS are thus also satisfied. WP:NPOV is staved off by having manageably sized articles with manageable scopes. The existing article will probably have to be rewritten anyway even if it was kept in its present form as it wasn't approached from that angle to start with and there is an inherent bias in the selection of events in the article. When we were doing Howard, 90% of the logjam there was because of poor selection of content - selection of stuff that didn't matter and omission of stuff that did (I mean we had two major stoushes and several short blocks over, of all things, copra plantations!) - and the article did not progress for 2 years while authors fought over irrelevancies and it almost went to ArbCom to sort out a couple of times. Eventually we got around it by just short of bulldozing and starting again from comprehensive sources. Now there's a lot less fighting over there because the partisan cause celebres have only the status they actually merit and the more mundane business of government is adequately covered. NSW politics aspect of the project ground to a halt 3 years ago because we had several prominent, educated and thoughtful editors driven away by a single bully who was later permanently blocked, and the project never really recovered. As a result, NSW politics is chronically undermonitored and most articles about key people are in a very poor state and contain many unfiltered and untested allegations against them, often of a trivial or time-specific nature. Action has proceeded in places like WA and Tasmania and Queensland mainly on the instigation of committed single editors with occasional collaborations. Essentially if one is going to build an article for Wikipedia, one must carefully do it (especially considering WP:BLP and its implications, and the fact places like CC and Wikimedia Australia are starting to communicate with Parliaments in various States and Federally and encourage them to release content for our use) in light of what comprehensive sources summarise as having happened then building from there - only there will we get a fairly objective picture, rather than just picking whatever we can find online (which I admit I've been guilty of doing a few times when in a rush). Orderinchaos 18:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As for how to name the article, I agree that a simplification could be in order. I think too that an expansion of some of Orderinchaos' notes about the realities of factionalism could find a place in the articleObservoz (talk) 10:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)