Talk:Wayne Swan

Untitled

I just made an edit of Queensland Labor Party into Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party. This is to avoid confusion with an actual party called the Queensland Labor Party (QLP) which was formed in 1957 when Premier Vince Gair took 25 ALP defectors to make up that party. The QLP subsequently merged with the Democratic Labor Party (DLP).

Swan/Rudd same school

Why must this edit be insisted upon? Timeshift (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not part of the subject's personal background. Ottre (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The deleted information, about Swan and Rudd both going to Nambour school is widely known and interesting, and should remain in the article. However, I'm surprised the information appeared to carry no reference, so without a reference it's always open to someone to challenge that it never happened. I hope the information can be restored again, with a reference. Here's a Google news search for a head start. --Lester 22:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

An editor obsessed with Swan's non-budget surplus

User:Smithysmith689 is obsessed with adding multiple entries to the article about Swan failing to deliver a budget surplus. It's clearly POV driven. I have asked him to discuss the matter here, and he hasn't yet done so. I am treating it as vandalism until he does. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't remove well sources material, undid your undoing.Crocodile2009 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. But remember that a discussion involves more than one party. You need to await responses to your thoughts on this before re-adding. Here are some... Being sourced is a minimum requirement for inclusion in an article. It doesn't mean it has to be there. How about adding something that goes a little deeper into the matter, such as mentioning the idiotic political dogma that says deficits are always a bad thing, leading to politicians saying things they know are unlikely? What you are trying to add looks like pure political point scoring from anti-Labor editors. That's a bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This didn't seem to bother you on Lib Member articles, suddenly the change of heart? Why your inconsistency? I'm just keeping you to account for your other edits, you seem to flip flop a lot. Wayne Swans budget surplus pledge as we all know was the most epic failure and well reported failing of his entire time as Treasurer, the fact of which you are trying to wipe this from the history books. Him and the Labor Party stated it on over 500 seperate occassions, so if it was worth mentioning 500 seperate times by them, it's worth mentioning at least once in this article which is exactly what is happening. Don't see much POV in that one sentence statement he promised a surplus and failed.Crocodile2009 (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable that this should be included in the article in some form given that Swan did emphasise the need for a surplus for years and made it part of the Government's fiscal strategy. Various commentators have written about this strategy and the decision to move away from it on political and economic grounds (with positive and negative comments on all aspects of it), but it needs to be written in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (eg, describing Swan's policy, giving his rationale for moving away from it and a fair summary of the responses this received). As the material which several editors keep edit warring into the article clearly doesn't meet these criteria I've removed it. I also removed some blatantly one-sided material which argued that his article in the Monthly only received a negative reception, which from memory wasn't the case at all (many of the people being quoted as criticising him were his political opponents, the people he criticised, or conservative commentators, none of whom were ever likely to say anything nice about Swan or his article). Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D, that's exactly the sort of comment I was planning to make here. I abhor shallow political commentary, and that's what the inserted text was. This needs to be put in context. The Coalition had constantly argued that the country needed to be kept in surplus, and seemed to have convinced the masses that it was a fundamental requirement for any government to aim for. This possibly forced Swan to do what he did. The global financial situation is obviously relevant too. Simply stating that he failed to deliver on a promise is silly. Just imagine if we recorded every broken promise from every politician ever! LOL. Now, I know I shouldn't be sucked in by Crocodile's attacks, but I have to say that I always disagreed strongly with Swan's promises of surpluses, and never thought they could be achieved. I did not vote ALP. I was very unhappy with their approach to many things. Please pay attention to what other editors actually say, and don't just play simple and simplistic politics. The world is a little more complicated than you seem to think or want it to be. That needs to apply to our articles too. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"I also removed some blatantly one-sided material" - What you did here in fact is remove all and any criticism of Wayne Swan, including the Budget Surplus Pledge but left "Worlds Greatest Treasurer" in there. POV? You've gotta be kidding us right? I notice Nick you have a high Labor edit history, not a card carrying member by any chance?58.7.37.172 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

While not all would agree, you obviously think "card carrying member of the Labor Party" is a serious insult, and personal attacks are not allowed. Shallow political insults are also just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wayne Swan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140914112013/https://www.mup.com.au/items/149038 to https://www.mup.com.au/items/149038

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)