Talk:Jay Weatherill

message: You've got to be kidding. We're two months out from a leadership transition and nothing official has happened, no election has occurred, Rann still holds the office of Premier, and the governor has done nothing. How can we possibly get this far ahead of ourselves at this point? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he even been elected leader by the parliamentary party? If not, remove it. Hack (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Meant to weigh in myself. Agree with Timeshift that this is premature. May be mentioned but infobox is so concrete. Just revert for now and will be simple to reinstate should things go to plan for Weatherill. There are of course many reasons why this plan could easily be thrown on its head. Donama (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Could you expand on those precedents? There are many going the other way, which is why the |succeeding parameter exists in the first place. -Rrius (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look at the history of every state and federal major party leader and election page. There are precedents everywhere. What doesn't ever end are these circular arguments about -elect and -designate. Every time... every time! Timeshift (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Removed - my understanding is that the succeeding parameter is for e.g. US Presidents-elect, where the "system" dictates that something will happen. It's incredibly premature to call someone the Premier-designate when the choice of Premier is the exclusive decision of the Governor, who has said nothing. He has not been elected leader of anything at this point, I believe the story amounts to some backroom/factional agreements (obviously non-binding) and Rann's commentary.  That's to say nothing of the fickle nature of Australian politics - 2 months is a long time... bou·le·var·dier (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premier-designate? 

message: Does anyone know where one can be found so the infobox at the bottom can be updated? The Premier website list is down for maintenence. Timeshift (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Sky - IN: Chloe Fox and Ian Hunter; OUT: Foley and Rann.  Hack (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better from The Australian a full list Hack (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ministry list? 

message: I can confirm his birth year through this source. The exact date, however, came from an IP and I can't find confirmation anywhere as yet. Frickeg (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 11 of the 22 October edition of The Australian has a profile containing the DOB 10 August 1964. Hack (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they have 10 April, the same date that was on Wikipedia, and possibly copied from there. Need an earlier or an official source. Mewulwe (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I had someone else in mind when I typed that. The construction of the piece suggests it owes a lot to Wikipedia... Hack (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOB 

message: Does that single sentence really need 10 references? I would have thought that 1 source that provided a decent summation would suffice. Kevin (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kevin, I was just following the example of Timeshift9 on the Isobel Redmond article where he added 28 references from July 2012 to October 2012.  Maybe I should add more sentences to cover the different details of the alleged coverups etc. Philiashasspots (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the one sentence is about right to describe these events, I'll see if I can pick out one source from that lot. Kevin (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schools and sex abuse and coverups 

message: Timeshift9 this was national news.  What else did Weatherill do last week? Philiashasspots (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back at it a few months on, it doesn't seem particularly significant - a couple of mentions in the news and then gone. I wasn't sure if it would have a lot of impact, but it doesn't seem to have had much. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think it highlights the turning point of "greater civility and respect between members of Parliament" which was getting out of control.Philiashasspots (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like three of us have objected, so I've removed it again while we work out how to proceed. In regard to it being a turning point, are there any sources which make this connection? As far as I can see, this wasn't a particularly significant event, and if we want to include all the times a leader insults the opposition leader, Keating's article would get buried under quotes. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I only count two objections. Bilby and Timeshift9.  Is it encyclopedic that Weatherill "has been a regular patron at the Alberton Hotel in his north-western suburbs electorate"?  In the dead link ref that I've just fixed you can see that Weatherill was trying to set new standards of civility in parliament.  Weatherill said in his first question time as Premier "Civility is perhaps a quaint notion but civility in Parliament is something we should always strive to uphold". I have heard mention of this cockroach comment on the radio over the last 5 months.  It was raised again on 4 May 2013 (almost 3 months after event) in The Australian.Philiashasspots (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I miscounted. I thought someone else had reverted. That said, do you have any source that shows that this was a particularly significant comment? The Australian coverage is only a passing mention, and I can't find anything which shows that the comment is important enough to warrant coverage here. - Bilby (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand with the miscounted objections.  Apart from the May 2013 article mention 3 months after the event I can not find any other source with "google".  However the event is over and done with, but is a historical fact.  Some people may want to hide the fact and hope people do not remember it and keep bringing it up.  Why such a strong objection to leaving this fact in?  Just because a fact is not discussed continuously - it does not make it less encyclopedic.  If the same "deletionist" threshhold was used on the SA politician pages they would have a lot less words on them. Philiashasspots (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most SA politicians are not Premier. Is there any indication that this comment was particularly significant? Otherwise this seems like precisely the sort of day-to-day thing we should be ignoring as not especially unencyclopaedic. The article is not meant to be a detailed rundown of every single day; WP:NOTNEWS. Frickeg (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Timeshift9, Bilby and Frickeg. If a third-party reliable source has noted that "it highlights the turning point of 'greater civility and respect between members of Parliament' which was getting out of control" (as Philiashasspots wrote above), then it can be included. However I can't find any such evidence of significant coverage of that comment. Graham87 01:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Graham87.  I thought the 3 days of national coverage on 6-8 of Feb 2013 was significant coverage.  This ref  was referring to the cockroach comment.  Since it now seems 4 to 1 I'll just take out the edit and someone else can put it back in. Philiashasspots (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be behind a paywall, but even a few sentences make it clear that that is an openly hostile opinion piece in the Australian. I'm inclined to think this is just another one of those things that blows up for a few days and then goes away, with no lasting significance. Frickeg (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it shouldn't be included maybe under a 'controversy' section which is present in many articles pertaining to political figures, etc. The fact that it was deemed newsworthy would suggest some element of controversy. Maybe it is a stretch to write that it is indicative of some turning point in civility and respect, etc if it doesn't say that in the article -- I'm sure those reading can make up their minds on that by themselves. However, there are plenty of remarks that were considered newsworthy at the time which are included under 'controversy' (or similar) sections in the articles of many politicians Australian and otherwise which people no longer remember and are no longer reported on. This does not mean they should be removed, especially in a relatively short article and in a medium where there are no fixed space constraints. So add me as an objection to removing it. --Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockroach comment 

message: "In late 2012 Weatherill, Grace Portolesi, Simon Blewett and advisers were drawn into an alleged cover-up in 2010 of an eight-year-old girl being raped at a western suburbs school, that led to an investigation into child sex abuse cover-ups in South Australian government schools." - I know we don't have govt articles on wiki for states but a WP:BLP article isn't the place for someone who had, at best, peripheral unknown involvement. Should it be re-worded or perhaps removed? Timeshift (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing now. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rape 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jay Weatherill. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/cheltenham.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pollbludger.com/sa2006/hartley.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the spirit of what eventually became the Rann Government article, i've added {expandsection} tags to the new Jay Weatherill#First term and Jay Weatherill#Second term sections. Does anyone have the motivation at present to add like content? Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  {expandsection} tags added to first term/second term sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jay Weatherill. 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/20160110015336/http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/priorities/policies to http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/priorities/policies
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107160332/http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/media-centre/news-archive to http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/media-centre/news-archive
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) 04:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jay Weatherill. 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/20151006223319/http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/ministers/premier-jay-weatherill to http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/index.php/ministers/premier-jay-weatherill
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) 14:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)