Talk:Ted Baillieu/Post Premier

Toorak

Firstly, Hulls branded Baillieu the 'toff from Toorak.' This has little currency in the public sphere, and should be removed.

Secondly, no other politicians listed on WIkipedia have the suburb where they are raised mentioned, so why should does Baillieu's entry mention Toorak? Either remove it and therefore conform to the consistent content other entries, or enter the suburb of raising for every other Australian politician.

Or perhaps this is another forum for sledging the wealthy?

C'mon wikipedia, you're better than that.

OK, fine. I'll do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.194.13.104 (talk • contribs).

Excuse my jargon illiteracy - this comment belongs in the previous section which i can't gain access to: With regards to the complaint about the inclusion of the fact that Ted Baillieu was born and bred in Toorak, might i note that Malcolm Fraser's article mentions he was born in Toorak and raised in Deniliquin, ("Born in Toorak a suburb of Melbourne, but growing up on a property near Deniliquin in western New South Wales"), that John Howard's article says "Howard grew up in the Sydney suburb of Earlwood.", that Kevin Rudd's article says "Rudd was born in Nambour, Queensland, and grew up on a dairy farm in nearby Eumundi". Heck I could go on all night, I think it's safe to say that the person who wrote the opening complaint about this article was fairly poorly researched, like most Liberal sympathisers usually are, when he said, "no other politicians listed on Wikipedia have the suburb where they are raised mentioned".

The fact Baillieu was born in Toorak has clearly influenced him, just as where I was born influenced me. This article is too short and needs more, rather than less information. 220.238.142.44 12:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that the author of the above is a he? What makes you think most Liberal sympathisers 'usually are ... fairly poorly researched'? Smacks of Labor sympathy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.90.171 (talk) 08:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Att: Rebecca

No one appreciates your cutting and editing of articles without any discussion.

Comments offered by someone else, both valid, are decreed by you as not valid. Why? The comments by the previous person, albeit not logged in, are important, and he or she does raises an interesting point. Why is there no recognition, just a quick erasure?

Doesn't sound like a fair, unbiased reference system that all are able to change and amend at all, just a mouthpiece for your ideology.

Unbelieveable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.133.75 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia encourages editing without asking first (unless there is a good reason to). Xtra 07:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Baillieu supporter, and proud of it. Please don't jump to conclusions. Rebecca 19:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Press Coverage

Edits to this article, and the associated talk page discussion are mentioned in today's Age, the Insight sections lead article by Simon Mann "Growing up Ted", (The Age 24/6). Not up for quoting it all here, but some of you might be interested in checking it out. Brendanfox 02:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dirtfile reference

Where this the reference (no 4) for the "dirtfile"? Peter Campbell Talk! 14:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Ted?

What is that nickname for Ted about?

I've heard it before, and it's used in a headline about him in today's Age, a source we generally accept as reliable in Wikipedia. Does it have a sensible basis, or is it just a term used by his detractors because it sounds clever because it rhymes? HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ted Theodore was the original Red Ted, but he was from the other side. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

But again that was partly because of the rhyme, because he wasn't very left-wing.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Baillieu's supposed 29 November swearing-in

See Talk:John Brumby#Baillieu's supposed 29 November swearing-in. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry table

Is there a way to make the unwieldy ancestry table hide by default rather than show by default? Timeshift (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would love to see it disappear completely. I'm sure it's all been added in good faith by his strongest fans, but it actually ends up making it look like he's up there because of his status as born-to-rule, a standard criticism of Liberal Party folk from their detractors. Pretty sure nobody else in Victorian politics has ever had their ancestry listed in that kind of detail. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. If justified, any prominent ancestry could be demonstrated through a concise sentence or two or three with the appropriate WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Added by his fans? I thought it was added by Labor Party operatives trying to talk him up as the "Toff from Toorak!! Anyway, it does not appear to be sourced and it is certainly WP:UNDUE. Get rid of it I say ... -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"...Labor Party operatives..." Ha ha. That's possible! Clearly I'm not as suspicious as you are. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Timeshift (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Things change quickly

Baillieu has been in power for only little over a year and a quarter, yet he's already the second-longest serving current Premier. Only Colin Barnett has been in longer. Just thought you'd all like to know that. Seems a far cry from the "good old days" when we went for seemingly years on end without any ripples disturbing the established order. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What about rumour that Baillieu converted to Catholicism? Any reliable refs on that? Melba1 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How ironic is the original comment! But why did he go? Surely the article should say something...--Jack Upland (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Stolen Age Tapes (sic)

A registered editor with only three edits to his name, and an IP editor whose edits I have disagreed with in the past (any chance they are one and the same?), have decided to edit war with me over the addition of a section called "The Stolen Age Tapes" (along with a couple of other dodgy edits elsewhere just recently). I think it's no more than an issue of the week, one which will have no long term impact on anything in particular. It's highly unlikely to satisfy our ten year test.

The addition also uses a completely incorrect terminology by referring to tapes. There are no tapes. The device involved is a modern, electronic, digital one.

This addition is undue. The edit warring has almost certainly been done to spite me, via deliberate multiple identities. It should be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadly in agreement. The whole incident probably warrants a sentence or two somewhere, but not here. Frickeg (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it probably warrants a sentence or two, both here because of the embarrassment it caused Baillieu, and at the Daniel Andrews article because of the bad press it's gotten him. I think it could wind up needing more than that (especially for Andrews) but it is way too soon to know how long this will run for or how big a story it will be. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RECENTISM and our ten year test? HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be patronising. Personally, I hope this is a flash in the pan and that the story is gone within the week. I am also not in any way arguing for the section you've been removing to be re-added as that is undue weight. However, it's something that at least warrants some mention in either the Baillieu story (as really the one notable thing that happened after he resigned as Premier) and in the Andrews article (as its some of the nastiest press he's received as leader). Intentionally trying to block any mention of things that patently will be referenced in at least some context in any biography of either man is silly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with this too. It definitely needs mentioning somewhere. I've been hearing this news (from out-of-state) for more than a month now. I personally think it's a pretty dumb story, but that has nothing to do with whether we include the info on Wikipedia. Frickeg (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Drover's Wife - didn't mean to sound patronising, but there's a messy situation here. OK, so several people think something is needed in the article, but what? The present content is simply wrong, because of the absence of any tapes in the real story. I find it very hard to separate what should be the notable, long term story from the short term, tabloid, day by day sensationalism, and perhaps my overall jaded view of Australian politics colours my perspective on this story too much. How do we decide now what will be notable in ten years time? HiLo48 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not arguing for the reinclusion of the content the previous argument was about. I think that separating the story from the sensationalism much easier to do in Baillieu's case than in Andrews - dude made off the record comments to journo about colleagues, tape wound up in the wrong hands, dude got publicly embarrassed and this is all pretty obvious, and there's good context articles around the controversy for pointing out that what Baillieu did was pretty normal. This can all be said in, like, two or three sentences. I am a lot less certain about how we do that for Andrews, because a) that part is still playing out, b) so much of the publicity is tabloid as hell, and c) I'm a bit too on Andrews' side. I don't think we can get away with not mentioning it at all there, however. We have to decide what will be notable in ten years time because we do it every day, and with reference to a suite of Wikipedia policies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Abortion stance

I would like to add this information to Mr Baillieu's page regarding his support of the 2008 abortion law reform act. [1]

2008 Victorian abortion law votes

Is it alright I add these link to Mr Baillieu's page.--Smokeyfire (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)Smokeyfire