Talk:Peter Costello

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
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
 Peter Costello 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
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Archives

[edit] captain smirk

Could someone at least put a reference in to the "captain smirk" issue in this biography

Sure, got a veriable reliable source? Shot info (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

how about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6961575.stm or http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/pms-staff-edited-wikipedia/2007/08/23/1187462443308.html?page=2 or http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s2014471.htm or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_characters_in_Monkey_Island#Captain_Smirk

But the main points are 1. a humours aside 2. a note about wikipedia its policies and vunerability —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnash (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So the fact that "Captain Smirk" was added once to the lead sentence of his WP, then (quite rightly) removed as vandalism, means his nickname is Captain Smirk forever now? Peter Ballard (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
So the original source was Wikipedia and now Wikipedia needs to reflect the fact that Wikipedia removed some original research from Wikipedia? Shot info (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
no the original research (or beat up if you prefer) was by the age and the bbc these represent a public controvery ( beat up) with respect to this page (and is rather amusing) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.243.67 (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


I think the original poster had a valid point. In Canberra he was affectionatly known as Captain Smirk. I wasn't even aware the nickname stemmed from Wikipedia, but ask any Canberran who Captain Smirk is and they'll think you're an idiot, obviously it's Peter Costello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.6.164.50 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes WP:POINT. Shot info (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - captain smirk did not originate on wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's disappointing that there isn't any reference to Costello as 'Captain Smirk', considering a Google search on Captain Smirk returns multiple article about the Costello. It’s an important part of political history considering PM&C was accused of editing out the reference of Wikipedia (see http://stilgherrian.com/politics/pm_edit_captain_smirk/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.20.218 (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The google mentions are predminantly blogs or newspaper references to the removal of the nickname from this article. Blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources, and the others are sources only for the fact that the article used to mention the nickname, not that the nickname itself is genuine.
Hopefully when various sitting Liberals retire and write their memoirs, one of them will discuss how they all called Costello "Captain Smirk" and we will then have a suitable source. Regrettably, until then there isn't enough to meet the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. Euryalus (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Those accusations of the PM's department editing Wikipedia refuse to go away, at least on this talk page. Hopefully to bury them, I offer my own analysis for consideration: http://www.peterballard.org/wikibeatup.html . "if John Howard's staff are interfering with Wikipedia, they're doing a pretty poor job of it. They've only done 4 edits to political articles in the last two years, preferring instead to edit articles on bird life and sport." Peter Ballard (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Well, in part I now agree with the views of not putting the name "Captain Smirk" on Wikipedia. However, this little exchange has taught me to pay more attention to the accuracy of articles hosted by Wikipedia and the politics, well, more policies, behind them.

Living in Canberra, it’s astonishing that the affectionate renaming of Peter Costello as 'Captain Smirk' could be questioned by anybody. I'm just so accustomed to it! Ask anybody here where Costello is now days, they’ll tell you “what Captain Smirk’s” doing. That’s just Canberra for you. That said, I can understand Wikipedia's policy & points of view and needing to find an original reference point.

In future, when researching articles of personal interest, I'll use Wikipedia as more of a secondary reference and try to use a broader range of media which may include ‘in jokes’ and inside knowledge.

Still love Wiki though :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.20.218 (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but everyone knows Canberra is a socialist republic! Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks

i wonder who keeps doing rude remarks about him although he isnt a minister so i think the honrable should go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Montana Gy (talk) 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a member of the Federal Executive Council. Please be encouraged to learn more about the Australian political system. Shot info (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Hon needs to be removed

"The Hon" at the start of his name needs to be removed as this term is reserved for current ministers. All politicians in opposition (even shadow ministers) do not have the title of The Honourable. Once a politician has finished there ministerial duty they loose the title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.140.69 (talk) 09:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Hon is a title for life per APH source. A Member or Senator who becomes a Minister is appointed to the Executive Council and thus has the title ‘Honourable’ while they remain Executive Councillors. It rests with the Governor-General to continue or terminate membership of the Executive Council and consequently the right to the title. With one exception, Ministers appointed to the Executive Council have not in the past had their appointment to the Council terminated upon termination of their commission and hence have retained the title ‘Honourable’ for life. Timeshift (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know who the "one exception" is that the above quote is referring to? --Roisterer (talk) 02:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Two possibilities are Jens Jensen, who was dismissed as Minister for Trade and Customs in 1918 after a Royal Commission found that he had behaved corruptly, and Hugh Mahon, a former minister who was expelled from the House for sedition in 1920. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It might also be Andrew Theophanous, who as far as I know is the only federal "The Hon" to be sentenced to prison. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well my sources including wikipedia article The Honourable say that the title is only for serving ministers. I have heard from a member of the house of representatives that the title is not for life. so you are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.140.69 (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a published reliable source that says so, feel free to put the reference in the article. Somebody "telling you something" is not a reliable source. At this moment in time, Wikipedia has several sources that says you are wrong. You only have somebody "telling you something". Which one do you think will win per Wikipedia policies? Actually, even the The Honourable disagrees with you. Shot info (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The only exception I'm aware of is Senator Glenister Sheil (Nats, Qld), who had his appointment to the Federal Executive Council terminated by Malcolm Fraser only about 2 days after has was appointed in 1977, and even before he had been sworn in as Minister for Vets Affairs, for making pro-apartheid statements. Thus, he was "The Hon" for about 2 days. It's all there in the EXCO article - that's because I put it there. Theophanous might qualify to be unappointed from EXCO, but afaik that has never happpened, so he's still "The Hon Andrew Theophanous". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Federal Executive Council of Australia Handbook tells us everything we want to know about EXCO, including that, barring exceptional circumstances, "The Hon" is for life (see para 2.1.4). Anyone or anything that says differently is simply misinformed. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Jack is correct. The 1987 Parliamentary Handbook records that Senator Glen Shiel was a member of the Executive Council for two days in 1977, but does not accord him the title "The Honourable." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)