Talk:Bob Carr

message: I've gone through the text, but I think it will need another massage soon, to shift away from any topical focus. As someone said on the discussion page, Wikipedia is not the 6pm news.
Tony 07:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update a few weeks after his resignation 

message: Needs a consistent approach. I prefer minimising the use of upper case initials.
Tony 05:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  upper/lower case 

message: * I understand that as a Premier he maybe could be "promoted" to "Australian Politicians" but shouldn't he be in "New South Wales State politicians" instead? Garrie 02:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories 

message: It has been claimed in the article that Carr said "This one's for Jack Lang!" when officially opening Government House to the public. I can find no source for this claim other than on the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy website, a speech by colourful Opposition MP Andrew fraser and and a couple of anti-Carr monarchist pages. With respect, these are not reliable sources.
Can anyone provide a more definitive source forthis quote? Carr was never a Jack Lang enthusiast (unlike for example, Keating), and it seems unlikely that he would have expressed these sentiments. Does anyone know? Jeendan 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one? Jeendan 05:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously not. I have removed the reference - if anyone has a genine source, please discuss it here before readding it to the article. Jeendan 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The source shows at least that monarchists claimed Carr said something about Jack Lang - whether he actually did or not -  though it seems unusual that this would be a blatant fabrication.  I've added in the point, from Carr's words in Hansard, that the Governor agreed with the premier's recommendation re. the house as an official residence. --G2bambino 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I don't think Carr actually did say this, but the way its worded now makes it clear it was only alleged he was saying it. The paragraph needs a bit of cleaning up to make it read better, but I've reverted my own reversion. A victory for compromise? Jeendan 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Lang reference re Government House 

message: Since John Brogden's disgracefully pointed remarks about Asian women was a direct jab at Helena Carr, and not just at her personally but as a political swipe at Bob Carr, perhaps we need some information about this ugly affair in this article.
:Maybe, though it is mentioned at Helena Carr and John Brogden (politician) so I'm not sure it has immediate relevance to this article as well. The incident also came to light after Carr had retired and he made very few comments on it. Do you have any wording in mind? Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Brogden-Helena Carr Incident

message: His centrist, cautious government has been characterised by conservative financial management
''
Sorry - that just isn't borne out by what has been learned since he left Government.
:If you have reliable sources to support an addition to the article, feel free. Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial management 

message: Apparently Bob Car is a huge West Wing fan and is president of the Australian fan club. I heard this in a radio interview on radio national. How relevent is this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a transcript of the Radio National program here. Seems like an interesting tidbit of info, feel free to add it to the article. Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Carr and [[The West Wing]] 

message: I've added Thoughtlines book but not really happy/familiar with wikipedias buttons for correct display on page.The book is Thoughtlines by Bob Carr, published by Penguin Group, via Viking,2002. Please take a look & fix /tidy up if needed,thanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading 

message: Resignation section issue:
By March of 2004, public support for Carr started to slip; Newspoll showed that for the first time more people were dissatisfied than satisfied with the Premier. The opposition were exploiting the fact that the lack of planning had not kept pace with a growing capital city where public transport, water and power supplies became increasingly neglected.[11] Even after series of announcements and re-announcements of more trains, and power stations, and a desalination plant, the public had seen enough of Carr. By June 2005, only 35%[25] were satisfied with his performance whereas his dissatisfaction rating had been over 51% since September 2004.
This doesn't actually seem to have any reference, and Reference 25 (the 35% figure) links to the Newspoll Wikipedia Article only and not any actual polling. "the public had seen enough of Carr" is clear opinion/commentary and not an actual fact. The wording needs to be changed I feel, perhaps to point to some actual polling and show that he was lagging in opinion polling or something but without the commentary/opinion/bias. The whole section seems to be a veiled sledge. I note as well that despite the apparent dissatisfaction with the ALP they won the 2007 Election easily with a different leader, so I'm not sure whether this works for or against the blurb above (ie. He resigned so ALP bounced back? Or his resignation was of no consequence, they would have won anyhow?). Obviously speculative, we clearly just need to look at tidying up the wording and citations of the section :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation Section Problem 

message: Regarding this reversion: 
I believe he is now a Senator, as of today's joint sitting of the NSW Parliament.  True, he hasn't been sworn in yet, but that doesn't alter his status.  The parliament has elected him, end of story.  Swearing-in is a pre-requisite for a senator to physically take up their seat in the Senate and engage in the business of the Senate; but swearing-in is not what makes them a senator. 
No new member of parliament is sworn in till some time after they're elected, but members are entitled to MP after their name immediately the result is beyond doubt on or after election night, and senators-elect whose terms start on 1 July are called "senator" from that date, even though the parliament is usually in recess till August and they can't be sworn in till then.  So, it's Senator Carr from 6 March 2012. 
Strike the above: I misread the reversion  It was about his appointment as Foreign Minister, not his swearing-in as a Senator.
The only question is: when exactly did Mark Arbib resign?  What we've been told so far is that he announced he'd be resigning on 9 March, which is still 3 days away, but the wording of O'Farrell's announcement seems quite clear that a vacancy has already been created, which would have had to be the case for them to choose a successor.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that I saw a story stating that his resignation letter was officially received by the Senate at 2pm yesterday. I can't find it now though! Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian Senate (@AuSenate) tweeted yesterday that the President of the Senate had received Mark Arbib's letter of resignation at 2:30pm on that day, and also some other details of the timing: "@AuSenate: At 2.30pm (Canberra time), the President received a letter from Senator Arbib resigning his place in the Senate". "@AuSenate: Under section 15 of the Constitution, the NSW Parliament may now choose a person to fill the vacancy caused by Senator Arbib's resignation." Then today: "@AuSenate: Joint sitting of the NSW Parliament will take place at 5.15 to select person to fill the casual vacancy." / "@AuSenate: The NSW Parliament has chosen Robert John Carr to fill the casual vacancy caused by the resignation of former Senator Mark Arbib" / "@AuSenate: It's expected he will be sworn in when the Senate starts at 12.30 on Tuesday" --Canley (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, but is there nothing that non-tweeters can view?  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find an ABC reference that Arbib's resignation took effect on 5 March: Senate-bound Carr set to be endorsed by party --Canley (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: When did Arbib resign?

message: Is it me or does this article read rather bias? The descriptions for Bob Carr's crowning achievements are all sourced from articles written by himself! It almost gives the appearance that he maintains his own wiki page. I think this article definitely needs a clean up and to source external articles because it currently does not look legitimate at all. -onebutters
:The "Awards" section certainly needs proper referencing.  But the best I can find is Carr's own blog. I would assume it to be accurate, since there is no reason to think that it contains any false claim and in any case a false claim would soon be found out and that would be disastrous. Maybe the man himself, since the blog links to this article, could assist? --Wikiain (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Agree Did I miss the parody tag?  It reads like an election flyer.  But that guy certainly wasn't from the campaign office!: User_talk:123.243.76.19  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.96.107 (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's approach is to describe what someone did and leave it to the reader to decide if that was good or bad. It's certainly not our job to tell the readers whether a politician's decision was a good or a bad one. Voters decide that at elections. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers should be given the facts and left to decide.  What's been identified and questioned though is the complete lack of balance and neutrality to the article.  Well sourced facts that don't support a particular (positive) POV are being promptly reverted.  It's important that the article is respectful WP:BLP, but this article has just become pure WP:Advocacy.  Bob Carr was active in public life, having both many supporters and critics.  In my opinion, he also rarely, if ever, shied away from using criticism when appropriate himself.  To have his biography become so clearly biased and appear censored this way is disrespectful to everyone and a mockery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.76.19 (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please suggest some specific changes to the article, supported by reliable sources. The article isn't protected, so you can make these yourself as well, though do please note WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some other editor would like to salvage specific changes from my last [edit] and attempt discussion of concerns.  I was already blocked twice for trying to discuss or seek consensus opinion on that and I've now given up hope for this article.  Let me just leave with a quote found on admin Wehwalt's page - "No public official who conscientiously discharges his duty will desire to deny those whom he serves the right to discuss his official conduct." (The New York World, August 13, 1896).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.76.19 (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a very poor and bad faith response to Nick-D's suggestion immediately above. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestions were in the edit. It's clear that seeking explanation of how WP:BLP was violated will result in a call of disruption and a permanent block. No thanks. 123.243.76.19 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I have an obligation to add, that despite what comes across as heavily critical details, Bob Carr I think has demonstrated a belief in public service, is dedicated to his work and in my view deserves respect for being out there having a go.  I should acknowledge to Nick-D that my initial edit, probably didn't convey that tone well (a serious public transport injury of a family member due to overcrowding and countless other horror stories probably overshadowed the tone).  There are significant aspects of Carr's service record that unfortunately need to be recognised.  His state government's performance on public transport, road and rail infrastructure is widely considered to have left the state in a mess, with enormous productivity costs.  That would be an aspect to find supporting references for.  Also, the subject of my edit, was Carr's high paid retainer from Macquarie Bank immediately after office.  Macquarie had achieved outstanding accomplishments for capital market efficiency and I'm sure created many benefits for the Australian economy - however bankers objectives are generally to serve their shareholders, themselves and their clients.  Just as separation between church/state & legislative/executive/judicial power is relevant to public office record;  separation between corporate or personal & government interests is highly relevant to public record.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.76.19 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "...widely considered to..." is a very non-objective measure of anything. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: There are a couple of things about the recent appointment of Deb O'Neill that I don't understand.
* It's been stated that Carr became a senator once more on 1 July, and that his new period of service would count for retirement benefits etc.  This must mean that his resignation in October 2013 applied only to his then-current term, which would have expired on 30 June 2014. If that is true, and his service to the Senate recommenced on 1 July in accordance with the will of the people of NSW as expressed on 7 September 2013, then why was he not required to resign once more?  Since he only ever resigned once, isn't he still a senator, and isn't the re-appointment of O'Neill invalid since there is no vacancy for her to fill?
* Leaving that to one side: The NSW Joint Sitting took place on 2 July 2014, but they stated O'Neill was appointed for the term beginning 1 July.    By what authority can a state joint sitting decree that the term of a replacement senator can commence before the joint sitting took place? Surely her service ceased on 30 June, and recommenced on 2 July, with a one day gap in between.  No?
Any assistance would be appreciated.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 10:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Antony Green covered this in two posts a while back. I have nothing close to the legal expertise to comment intelligently on any of this (but, as you will see, I ended up doing so anyway), but for our purposes I would wait until the new parliamentary handbook comes out and follow their lead. Antony points out the John Barnes precedent; I would think that Heather Hill also applies, to a degree. The ABC article you cite actually doesn't say that this new "term" would count for service; it actually says that it would have had Baird & Co. decided to wait until August to fill the vacancy. I disagree with this (from my admittedly limited understanding), because from what I have understood from this reading, the decision was made that although the vacancies would have to be dealt with separately, Carr's resignation applied to both periods of service (in fact I believe he was required to specify this?). For O'Neill it may be more complicated and I suspect the one-day gap in service will end up being reflected in her term of service. I think that you have misunderstood what the NSW Joint Sitting said. It said that they were appointing O'Neill to the term that began on 1 July 2014 (i.e. the one that Carr was elected to), not that O'Neill's term began on 1 July. It's a bit like saying that when Arthur Sinodinos was appointed in November 2011, he was appointed to a term that began on 1 July 2008 (the date Helen Coonan's term began). Frickeg (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're showing O'Neill as having been a senator continuously since November 2013. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. I am suggesting we wait until the parliamentary handbook comes out and see how they list it. Frickeg (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Quirky questions

message: Following on from the Neutrality thread above, I've done a bucketload of edits trying to recast some of the somewhat gushy tone to a slightly more impartial, (dare I say objective) bio. I'm not suggesting that it is now perfect (it isn't, not by a long way) but I hope some of the article's former detractors will be at least a little placated. 
I've left a note on Shuggyg's Talk page asking him to revisit his Neutrality tag. And with that I'm pretty much done here. Cheers all. Wayne 06:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity edits - I'm done 

message: Substituted at 09:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Why no section on family life?Suastiastu (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The article talks about his parents and wife but not in a discrete section. I think it is better that way. There is no requirement for a separate section, and the better bios on Wikipedia avoid it.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Life 

message: As Carr is a Premier who later went Federal, I am putting this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Politics_of_Australia#Premiers_and_Chief_Ministers_who_went_Federal
I am hoping that someone would respond to this. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premiers and Chief Ministers who went Federal 

message: The article currently includes a number of quotes said to be from James Spigelman in the section Tort reform, that Spigelman said that the tort reform  with the reference . Unfortunately nowhere in that paper does it quote Spigelman as using those words. While the referenced paper includes a link  - that link is dead but appears to be this speech . which does not include the quoted parts. I have been unable to find any source for the quote that does not come from Wikipedia. Unless someone can provide a reliable source, the unsourced quotes will need to be removed. --Find bruce (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tort reform quotes attributed to James Spigelman