Talk:Don Farrell

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

Untitled[edit]

If the stuff about Ellis, Kirk and Rann is not referenced to a public source soon I will delete it, as it stands it is just gossip. Intelligent Mr Toad 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kirk has fallen out with Don Farrell, the South Australian head of the Shoppies, who control all the Right-wing preselections in that state, over the employment of his wife in her electorate office. Farrell hatched a crazy plan to defeat Kirk and make Ellis a Shadow Minister. He made Ellis nominate for the position and told buckoes to vote for her. And that was it: Ellis two votes, Kirk one."(Latham 2005 pg363) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.157.124 (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senator[edit]

Quick question, when addressing a Senator that holds a portfolio you refer to him/her as Senator the Hon so and so, in speech and in writing, why not here in the info box? CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Role in Rudd's replacement[edit]

The following was deleted:

The Daily Telegraph's national political editor, Mr Simon Kearney, reported Farrell's appointment to the position of Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water as a reward for his role in the promotion of Gillard.[1] However, this has been disputed by senior members of the government, such as the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.[2]

I suggest that this is a balanced reporting of fact. That is, Mr Simon Kearney did make those comments as did Minister Albanese. It presents both sides. There is no basis for deletion. Dnb01 (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it has WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE and WP:REL issues, to the point where I don't consider it worthy of inclusion. Timeshift (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with Timeshift: I'm afraid this section does not abide by the NPOV policy. That Farrell put the support of South Australian Unity behind Gillard is true, although I suspect there would be balance issues with its inclusion. A link between factional plays and his being promoted would have to be very well referenced for it to be suitable for inclusion. As it is, the reference used here is an obvious opinion piece (it describes Farrell as a "faceless man" in the first sentence), and is not even close to being a reliable source.  -- Lear's Fool 05:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only balance, but noteability. SA is not Australia. The influence is comparively weak - it's not something like (and I point this out on purpose) Farrell's support of Rann which was added a long time ago by me in Rann's article, a situation where Farrell's support is utterly crucial and of complete relevance. The Dnb01 addition simply screams WP:SOAPBOXing to me... Timeshift (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, I also agree with Timeshift and Lear's Fool. That Farrell is a factional boss is relevant (though I notice it is unreferenced). That he had influence in a factional issue is implied from his role as a boss. That someone asserts and someone else denies that he played a particular role in a particular issue is coming a little close to the "he said she said" that is day-to-day politics. In what is otherwise a short article, not every newspaper mention of farrell justifies being included on the page, particularly where the mention is an opinion piece and its central premise is immediately denied.
There is an argument for inclusion, and congratulations to Dnb01 for taking the time to find references - something many political articls lack. But on balance, the particular sentence and refutation seem a little trivial in a short piece like this one. Euryalus (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for constructive feedback all and will of course defer to the consensus. Please be assurred Timeshift9 no WP:SOAPBOXing intended. And, Lear's you make an important point re: objectivity of references which is problematic with some news publications in Australia. Euryalus your point re: the particular sentence and refutation is well made. I think any reference to role of faction in political articles will always draw discussion. Dnb01 (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your 10,000 character list of references. Not to assume bad faith, but this is often done by some users who wish to push their point across when their article contributions have been deemed unsuitable. The talk page is not a "dumping ground" for articles. Please note that your references haven't been lost, they are in the talkpage history. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Timeshift for educating someone new to the community, and clearly no bad faith intended. Just wated to draw attention to the citations especially given previous comments re citations. Do you think these references should be added to the main article? I would also be interested if you think that edits to the original proposed inclusion could overcome the issues you identify, you just deleted with out providing constructive feedback on how to overcome those issues. I would welcome you using considerable experience to put forward such a suggestion. Also, whilst not to assume bad faith, I though it would be courtsey when deleting to put a note on the talk page such as Intelligent Mr Toad did on 13:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC). I would welcome your advice on what proper protocol is. Dnb01 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read what i've already said above - I don't consider it worthy of inclusion (nor important enough to spend time on). If you believe otherwise you will need to form WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following David Feeney, Bill Shorten, Mark Arbib and Paul Howes wikipedia pages all reference their role in the factional play that led to Kevin Rudd's removal. In fact, Paul Howes specifically refers to Don Farrell. Some of these have limited referencing. Given these other pages, is that enough WP:CONSENSUS? When do I have enough supporting references to support its inclusion given the list Timeshift (talk) deleted? Please explain this inconsistency. Dnb01 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your contrib as it stands does not meet wiki guidelines. If you wish to improve it then please put it forth here. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "On 25 June 2010, Farrell was one of the main factional leaders involved in the replacement of Kevin Rudd as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party and Prime Minister for Julia Gillard." Take your pic of references previously provided Timeshift. If you don't like the suggestion, put forward something. Dnb01 (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Don Farrell played a role in the coup of Kevin Rudd can further be supported by WikiLeaks cables 09CANBERRA545[3], and supported by 09CANBERRA188[4]. He is quoted as saying that Jullia Gillard is "campaigning for the leadership" in a classified US-eyes-only cable discussing Gillard as possible Rudd successor a year before the coup. In the other earlier cable he expresses the sentiment that "once Kevin Rudd's popularity with the voters wanes" factions of the Labor party like he leads would "reassert themselves". Bailey carlson (talk)

References

  1. ^ "Julia Gillard rewards the plotters". 12 September 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
  2. ^ "Gillard didn't reward plotters: Albanese". 12 September 2010. Retrieved 29 September 2010.
  3. ^ "GILLARD: ON TRACK TO BECOME AUSTRALIA'S NEXT PRIME". WikiLeaks. Retrieved 10 February 2012.
  4. ^ "ALP FACTIONS BIDE THEIR TIME". WikiLeaks. Retrieved 10 February 2012.

Controversy section?[edit]

Let's just skip past WP:CONTROVERSY for a moment. Leaving that aside, what makes Ralph Clarke or "The Power Index" authoritative on the subject of Farrell? Not exactly a WP:RS. Can we remove it from the controversy section and while we're at it, find a suitable title for the section? Timeshift (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw the above, I was like "wtf is The Power Index?", but looking at it, it's a Crikey publication, and the Farrell entry was written by Paul Barry, who's about as reputable a journalist and biographer as they come. I think it's hard to challenge that as a reliable source. I also think Clarke is worth quoting. He was a senior Labor figure, his opinions are relevant, this particular quote is widely quoted and in this case, it's pretty useful for getting across Farrell's historical influence within the SA branch. My one concern here is that while Clarke is right, considering that he lost a preselection battle to the Farrell forces, he's not the most unbiased source on the matter, and we don't mention his obvious stake in the matter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Don Farrell. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Don Farrell. 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: 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) 07:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Farrell. 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: 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) 04:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Farrell&oldid=1207185382"