Jump to content

Talk:February 2015 Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PROD

[edit]

PROD gives this article 7 days - well past Tuesday. Please leave it in place. I hope everyone agrees that if the spill motion is either not put on Tuesday, or it fails, this article should be deleted. --Surturz (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit silly to have a 'to be deleted' tag on an article which will receive a large number of views in that period, so I've removed the tag. The media is reporting that there will be at least a very serious discussion of the leadership next Tuesday, and a spill motion will probably be made. As such, while there's a solid case to change the name of the article, it should remain. At a minimum, what will occur will be comparable to what the Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013 article covers (albeit with the Liberal Party having different rules). Nick-D (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will you agree to deletion if the spill motion either doesn't happen or fails to pass? --Surturz (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not: if this fizzles out entirely, then probably as it can be covered in either the Abbott article or Abbott Government article, but a serious leadership challenge against a PM is notable in isolation. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree there is a chance that the spill will fizzle out and not happen. How is that not a clear-cut violation of WP:CRYSTAL? I'm not even asking for immediate deletion, just that the PROD remain in place until we know what the outcome is. Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013 is totally different since it was created upon the spill being announced, not days ahead. --Surturz (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit of a difficult-to-justify position to be honest. Two MPs have stated that they will be moving to have a spill motion considered on Tuesday, and the PM has agreed to let them do so. Whether a "spill" subsequently eventuates isn't a certainty at the moment (and I've been critical of the "spill" naming convention for these articles in the past and support the new name), but it seems to be very likely. The article would look ridiculous with a prod tag on it. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A spill motion is not a spill. The spill motion is far from certain to pass (e.g. Shanahan says it won't. [1]). While it may be quite likely that there will be a spill motion, there is no certainty at all that there will actually be a spill. --Surturz (talk) 06:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

[edit]

This ABC story explaining how leadership challenges in the Liberal Party work looks useful: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-06/liberal-leadership-spill-mechanics-tony-abbott/6069470 Nick-D (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't explain anything at all! --Surturz (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015"?

[edit]

Possible? Wow that was a WP:POINTy move. And without talkpage discussion. Why not 'Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015' as opposed to 'Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015'? Timeshift (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D agreed the title should change per edit summary here: [2]. I won't oppose a move to 'Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015'. Neither the spill motion nor the spill itself has occurred. Per WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:RECENT), content consisting solely of speculation should not be in WP. If the spill motion fails, there would be no case for the retention of this article. I'm tempted to nom it for AfD but whatever happens on Tuesday will decide it all for us anyway. I don't believe that WP should adopt the worst excesses of the Australian 24-hour news cycle, as it appears to be doing here. --Surturz (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we don't have a challenger (yet?) or even confirmation that a leadership vote will actually take place, the current article name seems sensible to me. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background information

[edit]

The article is desperately in need of background information that explains how this situation came about: failure to pass budget measures, failed reduction in Medicare rebate, Sir Duke, Queensland election etc. It needn't be biased, merely a statement of the facts that led here. WWGB (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over referencing

[edit]

I've just removed some of the worst over-referencing I've ever seen. Per WP:V and WP:RS, there's no need to provide multiple sources for uncontroversial statements of fact. Some of the references were to British newspapers for no sensible reason I can see (are these "more truthful" than the Australian media?). Articles on current events seem to be attracting this sort of stuff at the moment, and it's a waste of time. (That said, my comments in the edit summary were overly rude - sorry). Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this but FWIW there's nothing wrong with two sources instead of one. I do like the idea of backing up national coverage with international coverage. They do provide a refreshing outsiders perspective. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who was involved, the use of international references was to give context that this story is not just news in Australia; but is gathering news elsewhere. The use of additional references, where used, was not to reinforce an existing message, yet to provide a different angle that supports text. If an editor wishes to use pejorative language on this page, so be it. I sleep well at night. Rangasyd (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of opinion pieces

[edit]

Per longstanding WP:AUSPOL convention, opinion pieces are not WP:RS by themselves. If an opinion is notable, reliable sources should be found quoting the opinion. Otherwise AUSPOL articles will end up full of Andrew Bolt and Van Badham op-eds. --Surturz (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was also raised at User talk:Nick-D#Use of opinion pieces where I noted that the material on the analysis of the vote is permitted under WP:NEWSORG as the op-eds are only being provided as references for the views their authors' express in them (with this being described in very broad terms in the article - I also wouldn't want to see "he says - she says" type material parroting the views of different commentators), and that I agree with the removal of the op-eds which were being used to cite statements of fact. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Article

[edit]

Seems silly to maintain title with word "Possible" in it. Whether you like the name of the article or not, it's ridiculous to maintain the word 'Possible' after the event has taken place. I don't mind the name: "Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015" because it goes nicely with the related leadership articles of 2007, 2008 & 2009. I would suggest the following alternative title for the article as: "Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015 (motion defeated)". I know that it's a bit long winded and includes brackets, but does anyone have a preferable name. I'm not seeing much so far. --Mrodowicz (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be strong support for that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015, and I also agree. Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015 is inaccurate as no spill occurred - the motion to spill the leadership was defeated. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll contribute my 2 cents worth to the debate --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent outcome. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added POV tag

[edit]

It's clear this article is becoming an anti-Abbott page, so I have added a POV tag. I have particular issue with the use of opinion pieces to support WP:OR statements, and the inclusion of irrelevant background. Emissions trading is irrelevant to this event. Gillard's minority government is irrelevant to this event. They are adequately covered in other articles. --Surturz (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Timeshift9 reverted my addition of the POV tag within a minute shows where we are at with this article[3]. --Surturz (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create, barely edited or touched the article. Please don't make WP:OWN accusations. Here's an accusation - you're at this juncture because your AfD nomination failed abysmally. Timeshift (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Abysmally" is overstating the support for deletion - it was hardly a snow close. You've been quite happy to spam WT:AUSPOL and coordinate with User:Nick-D to protect this page and its contents, so I think it is fair to say that you are invested in this article to a fair degree. Between the two of you, every improvement I have made on this article has been reverted. --Surturz (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the tag as no sensible concerns have been raised here. Having too much background is hardly a problem (and especially not one that's hard to fix!), and the stuff about the op-eds was covered above: the way they were used was entirely within the scope of the applicable guidelines, and you dropped this issue once I pointed it out. Surturz, what are your proposals for improving the article? (and there's obviously lots of scope to make it better) If you're going to start throwing silly accusations of bad faith around, I'll respond by noting that it's my perception that you've been trying to do everything to can to discredit this article as the topic it covers is embarrassing to your preferred side of politics and this is getting into rather tiresome WP:POINT territory. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't drop the issue - you were edit warring and I didn't want to participate in that. You have made absolutely no attempt to address my concerns and between you and Shifty have reverted all my edits, including removing a POV tag and falsely claiming I didn't name any specific concerns, when I clearly have, above. That's not consensus building - it's bullying. --13:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, I've just done a quick 10-minute run-through the article, and there are some issues. I wouldn't say it is an "anti-Abbott" page, but there is a little too much use of sources based on anonymous backgrounding, and too much of the vague "some journalists" / "some MPs" language. Nothing that's not quickly fixable though; overall it's a comprehensive and neutral article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the anonymous backgrounding (if not the "some journalists", or "some MPs" unless used in the sources itself) is an inevitability of articles on these subjects - I can't think of a leadership spill in modern political history where anonymous backgrounding wasn't a fundamental part of the story, and only telling the MP or three who invariably winds up being the one to put their name to it would tell, well, a very strange story of any leadership spill. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't so much with the anonymous back grounding per se. It is that newspapers themselves heavily qualify how they report it, usually with language like "Fairfax understands..." If we are to bring that to Wikipedia, we need, at least, to carefully carry through the same qualifications rather than say or imply that what "Fairfax understands" is fact. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think AUSPOL editors need to decide whether they are encyclopaedists or amateur political journalists. If the latter, they should go away and start a blog. Unverifiable hearsay has no place here because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Politicians leak untruths to journalists to support their politicking with their colleagues, and journos print the untruths because it sells newspapers and they don't need to decide whether the leak is true or not - they just have to say that "someone important said it". We should not include this dubious rubbish. I have a particular problem with the following para...

Analysis of the vote by journalists judged that its result has badly damaged Abbott's standing. A number of journalists have written that the high number of votes in favour of the spill motion indicate that Abbott is likely to face further challenges to his leadership

..."supported" by five opinion piece refs. WP:WEASEL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BLP, WP:OR... take your pick. --Surturz (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, that paragraph grated with me too. It would be better to directly quote one or two (credible) journalists directly than bind them together like that. Or just leave it out altogether and wait for history to be the most accurate judge. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, better to get a quote from a named journalist per ATTRIBUTEPOV. I would recommend one quote from Malcolm Farr, Dennis Shanahan or Laurie Oakes ("weakened PM") to counterbalance any quote from journalists in Farifax/Guardian/The Conversation. -- Aronzak (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's two issues here. I fiercely disagree with the first part of Surturz's comment: talking to journalists under condition of anonymity is a fundamental stage of how a leadership challenge is done, and is about as "dubious" as the Watergate reporting was because they protected the confidentiality of their sources. Talking about a leadership spill without talking about anonymous backgrounding and the extent of it makes us look like amateur hour. This isn't about including opinion: it's just including appropriately referenced content so that our coverage doesn't suck. This is an aspect which no one, writing about this incident in a journal or a book in hindsight, would leave out, and any history book covering leadership challenges will bear that out.
That said, the way in which this was reported here...left a lot to be desired. I think we can more credibly talk about the anonymous backgrounding by talking about what specific key journalists were stating that they were hearing. I think it would be relatively easy to, along similar (but probably broader) lines to that as Aronzak, detail this out, contextualising these reports of backgrounding with the advantage of hindsight into knowing what happened (and which could be taken more seriously and who was talking out their ear). "Analysis of the vote by journalists" is crap writing (apologies to the author) as is "Abbott is likely to face further challenges" without clarifying who is saying these things, but the point still needs to be made. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion appears to have concluded a few days ago, and the material on the op-eds has been re-written (which looks good to me), I've removed the POV tag as it no longer seems necessary. Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to User:Mkativerata for their re-write and resolving the POV dispute. --Surturz (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Submarines - open tender?

[edit]

I notice that the article refers to an open tender for submarines instead of, or, in addition to, "competitive evaluation process". Any reason? Timeshift (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 September 2015

[edit]

Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 → Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, February 2015 – There's another 2015 Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion going on. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-14/liberal-leadership-malcolm-turnbull-tony-abbott-ballot/6774506 110.20.234.69 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, February 2015. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, February 2015. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

I propose that we treat the two leadership challenges of 2015 the same way as we do in the article Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 1975. With the benefit of three years of hindsight, to me it seems like a failed spill motion isn't really significant enough for its own article. There don't seem to be any other articles on Wikipedia about challenges that didn't even come to a vote - in Australia or elsewhere. Although this article currently seems quite long, in reality there are only about four or five paragraphs relating to the spill motion itself (one in the Background section and the others in the Vote section). The rest is just background and context that really belongs in the Tony Abbott and/or Abbott Government articles (and may be there already). I propose that we merge the relevant content from this article into the Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015 article (which would be renamed to omit "September"). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_2015_Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spill_motion&oldid=1201952359"