Talk:Jeff Kennett

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag
Portal
 Jeff Kennett is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

Can anybody include information about case-mix system ??. Thanks in advance.

Contents

[edit] The Herald Sun vs The Age

The Age is not Melbourne's leading daily newspaper.

It sells under 200,000 newspapers a day. The Herald Sun sells more than 550,000 newspapers a day.

The Herald Sun has a greater readership in both metro Melbourne and country Victoria.

It is highly regarded among business, political and social circles as the paper of record and influence in this state.

To write The Age is the "leading daily newspaper reflects the bias of the author writing profiles on this site.

Of course, I work for the Herald Sun and am proud to do so.

Actually it's a trashy tabloid rag and spent seven years sucking Kennett's toes. Adam 23:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] In defence of the Herald Sun

Although I agree with Adam Carr's comment on the trashy-ness of the Herald Sun 100%, the definition of leading daily newspaper is not (last time I checked) the least trashy one. The no-brainer definition would be the highest circulating newspaper, which makes the Herald Sun Melbourne's leading daily.

I personally wish it was the other way around, but this is not the place to argue that point, this place is for the facts. Bambul 07:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i strongly disagree with calling the age "the leading paper" and i will remove that title unless someone can show me that it is the leading paper of a city which also has Australia's most popular paper. Xtra 06:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The text of the article has been changed to "...A leading Melbourne daily...". I am personally satisfied with that. Bambul 05:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
that was me. i thought it would sattisfy both sides. Xtra 04:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whether a paper "leads" or not is a function of its quality, not its circulation. The Age, a genuine quality paper and politically independent, is vastly more influential in Melbourne than the Hun, a trashy tabloid and predictably Liberal on every issue. The same could be said of the New York Times v the Post, or the Times of London v the News of the World. Adam 03:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i dissagree. IMO the herald sun is quality ( btw the age is hard to read). the age is not as neutral as you say that it is. there is no way you can say that the age is more influential when the herald sun has far more than double the number of readers as the age. i can tell from your language that you personally do not think highly of the herald sun. 500,000 melburnians disagree with you. as such, the title of the leading paper cannot be sustained. Xtra 03:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will, with difficulty, refrain from sarcastic comment about why Xtra might find the Age hard to read. Xtra's simply reiterates that the Hun must be regarded as "leading" because it has a bigger circulation. But trashy tabloids always have bigger circulations than quality papers. Is the Sun really London's "leading" newspaper, when it is nothing but tits-and-bums trash? Most Hun readers buy it for its sports coverage (which is excellent), and pay little attention to its political coverage (except maybe Andrew Bolt, who is a good read). By contast people buy the Age specifically to read its political coverage and commentary, which influences everyone else in the media, politicians, academics and opinion-leaders generally. Adam 03:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yes adam. i am a simple person who doesnt like long words and newspapers that are larger than my table. i read the herald sun because it uses easy to understand words and the articles are not so long. Xtra 03:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any way of responding to that which doesn't sound rude and sarcastic, and you know how much I hate being rude and sarcastic. So I will just say that in the light of what you have said about your reading habits, I am no longer surprised at your inability to engage with the points I have been making. I suggest you buy a bigger table. Adam 03:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference to "a leading Melbourne daily newspaper". The Age is one of only three daily newspapers -- and one of those is a commuter giveaway. One has a higher readership, another claims a higher "AB" readership. Describing The Age as "leading" in such a small field is absurd and meaningless.Grimhim 04:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herald Sun is better, Kennett was better than Bracks...

Read title. Lol. The Herald Sun is a tabloid; 'tis easier to read than the filthy (the ink!!!), rag-like Age newspaper. The HS is smaller and thus can be read anywhere - even on-the-go - while The Age requires you to sit down at a desk/table the size of a football field! (and yes, I am biased; being a proud Capitalist!). Also, the articles are of (almost) equal length in both newspapers, so whoever said that they weren't is wrong. Also, yee who say that the Age is 'independant and unbiased': WRONG! lol. Finally, shouldn't this argument be on the newspaper's individual pages, and not on the article for My Lord His Holiness Sir Jeff Kennett The Great? ZPMMaker 10:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC) PS: Steve Bracks sucks.

[edit] POV omission

There is an omission that results in a POV. The author does not mention that the previous Government's debt was the underlying cause of Kennett's cost-cutting measures. Until it is shoen a)that no debt existed and b) Kennett's efforts were not in response to this, I will keep rectifying this omission.

I have changed thewording, but still included statements to the effect that Kennett's fiscal actions were a result of previous government, this was originally omitted, resulting in the implication that Kennett had alterior motive.

To say that it was a direct result of the previous government also conceals any alterior motives that he DID have. Alterior doesn't mean "bad" either. I am not implying that it was a cold grab for cash, just that the conservative push at the time was to privatise, be it to increase competition, settle debts or outsource responsibility it doesn't matter... To say "previous Government's debt was the underlying cause of Kennett's cost-cutting measures" is oversimplifying the situation and creating a new POV issue.

[edit] Throwing sand

On the ABC news a couple nights ago they were saying something about kennet, and they showed some clips off the things he did while premier (i'm assuming) and one of them involed him throwing shovelfuls of sand over the media. 0_o . does anyone know why he did this?

It happened on May 29, 1996 at the ground-breaking ceremony for the CityLink tollway project in Swan St. Kennett, who was becoming increasingly cranky at continuing media criticism of his arrogance, threw four spadesful of sand at photographers and cameramen covering the event. Guests laughed and the Herald Sun and SBS threatened to bill him for the damage to equipment (the lens of a $50,000 TV camera was among those damaged). Letters in the Herald Sun in the next few days were scathing of the behaviour of not only Kennett but those who laughed at media people -- who, of course had been invited by the Premier's media unit to cover the event -- having sand thrown at them while they carried out their work. The incident was a potent symbol at the time of the tense relationship between Kennett and the media.Grimhim 03:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV changes

Harro5, your clumsy efforts have done nothing to improve this article. This is a butchery, not an improvement. You have trampled over and erased the most recent events in the Kennett story. Thanks, pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimhim (talk • contribs)

  • This doesn't help. My objections are all reasonable, my changes all positive setps forward. Please discuss specific concerns rather than use wholesale reverting. Thanks. Harro5 11:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Your obliteration of the dramatic events of the last two days, as contained in the Kennett article, is sufficient reason to revert. You seem obsessed with demanding citations for generally accepted political developments. Take the time to examine these things one at a time without trampling over the contributions to this article in the last 36 hours. Your revert has compounded your initial clumsiness.Grimhim 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
"Accepted political developments" cannot just be added into an encyclopedic entry. Who has stated them publicly and in the media? Where is the references to confirm this? As for the recent events in Kennett's considered return, it is all covered in the Rumoured returns to politics section, but it is now fully referenced. Wikipedia is not written on perceived commonly-accepted views; it is written in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Thanks. Harro5 22:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the new Return to Politics section, which solves the problem and restores the events you had deleted. I remain baffled by the claim that the article breaches WP neutrality standards, and your search for citations for such matters as Labor being defeated because of its handling of Victoria's economy. Is this part of your POV objections, or do you wish to clutter the article by inserting media references to every single political development?Grimhim 23:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to ensure that this article does not become a biased history of Kennett's reign, and so I am asking for some sources for specific claims. Of course, I don't think we need to cite why Kennett lost the election in 1999, but I'll list some examples of problems (this isn't exhaustive):

  1. "the Liberals were considered a good chance of winning the 1988 election": considered by whom? Have we got poll numbers to refer to? A political historian's findings? This would solve the problem.
  2. "Kennett described Alan Hunt, the instigator of the coup, as 'a man never to be trusted'": this quote is surely mentioned in a book of Kennett, or an article on his career.
  3. "he allowed his supporters to stage a party-room coup": this probably should be cited.
  4. "the Labor government [in 1992] which was held responsible for the state's economic and budgetary": needs sources saying who was blaming the govt, or showing it was a widely held view.
  5. "Kennett immediately instituted one of the most radical budget-cutting and privatisation programs undertaken by any Victorian government": could be worded to sound less critical. One of the most radical is a terrible phrase for an encyclopedia.
  6. The entire paragraph about the changes Kennett brought in. "At the same time, positive reforms were made in state education...": well, who decides what were positive or negative reforms? Just state what happened.
  7. "Industrial relations reforms reduced the influence of the trade unions." I don't dispute that this is likely true, but can we have more specifics on how influence was reduced, as opposed to a sweeping statement.
  8. "previously sought by small-l liberals and parliamentary reformers." It never bodes well with NPOV to brand people's views like this.
  9. "Critics pointed out that the Kennett government was claiming credit for external factors such as improving national economic indicators, and that states that had not undergone similar radical reforms also saw economic improvement." Who are these 'critics'? This is too 'un-named sources say...' at present.
  10. "There were many allegations of corruption in the [Crown Casino] tendering process for the casino, but no impropriety was ever proved." Just a source making such allegations will suffice.
  11. "During his second term, however, the public began to tire of what was seen as his arrogant and confrontationist style." Everyone in Victoria knows this is a true statement of political history, but for Wikipedia it should be supported by a specific claim. The events of the last few days will surely address Kennett's perceived flaws in media articles.
  12. "The Age newspaper, which had supported Kennett in 1992 and 1996, turned against him." Awful wording, as it has strong POV. The facts are right but a re-write is needed here.
  13. "While Labor remained weak and leaderless, it offered little challenge to Kennett's dominance of Victorian politics." In whose eyes is this a true statement? This definetely needs a reference. Remember, no original research means no editorialising.
  14. "On the morning of the election a leading political journalist, Ewen Hannan, predicted that 'Labor supporters will be crying into their beers tonight'." Just a source will do.
  15. "The defeat of the Kennett Government was almost totally unexpected, and was regretted by those who had admired the government's bold reforms, which had restored Victoria's fiscal credibility, stemmed the fall in its population growth rate and revived its economic growth. Critics argued that Kennett's radical programme had damaged the social infrastructure through the reduction in government services, particularly in regional areas, and that this, added to the perception of some that Kennett was arrogant, had led to his downfall." Yikes! This makes a lot of biased statements without sources, and should be re-written with references or deleted.
  16. The last paragraph of the 1999 election defeat section is probably OK, but could use a cited quote from Jeff about not returning to politics in future.

Hopefully Grimhim you now see where I am coming from in my objections. This is a very substantial list of complaints, and I would strongly oppose removing the POV-section tag (at the very most, replace it with {{verify}}) until some improvements are made. Thanks. Harro5 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I do see where you're coming from. Thanks for spelling out your concerns. However your desire for references or citations (many of which may be a tall order) don't justify the tag claiming the Kennett article breaches WP's neutrality standards. As the WP POV page says, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views". I see no conflict; there's certainly none in the discussion page and little evidence of any series of changes or reverts on the main page from contributors disputing claims made in the article. This being the case, the "disputed" tag should be removed.Grimhim 01:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hawthorn player?

There's no mention of this on either the official AFL site or the official Hawthorn site - which is a curious omission for a club president. Can anyone find a source for this? Lokicarbis 23:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like absolute nonsense to me. I will check my copy of the club history soon and delete the reference if necessary. Mustard Pot 05:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See below. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've checked the VFL/AFL players' dictionary and the Tony Parkinson biography 'Jeff', and in neither do they mention him actually playing for Hawthorn. I've removed the offending section as a result (something I originally did anonymously some years back, before it appeared again - probably written by the same person). I thought the old claim that someone played for X club was a thing of the past! 11:55, 2 February 2008 - rjscu1

[edit] Birth date

Where did 25 July 1948 come from? All the sources I’ve ever seen say he was born 2 March 1948 - Vic Parliamentary website, Victorian Parliament Chronology, etc. (After some digging) Ah, I see what’s happened now. This edit from an unregistered editor who obviously likes vandalism, was made back in October 2006, and the incorrect birth date has been there ever since. I’ll be correcting it.

This editor was also responsible for the misinformation about him playing for Hawthorn - see this diff. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)