Talk:Wayne Swan

message: Why must this edit be insisted upon? Timeshift (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not part of the subject's personal background. Ottre (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Swan/Rudd same school 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  An editor obsessed with Swan's non-budget surplus 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified