Talk:Thomas Playford IV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Featured article star Thomas Playford IV is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Flag
Portal
 Thomas Playford IV is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Renumbering

An email to mail:helpdesk-l said:

Re entry for Thomas Playford IV (should be Thomas Playford V)

Please note that Sir Thomas Playford, the former premier, was not the
fourth in the line of Thomas Playfords; he was the fifth.  His great
grandfather, the 'fiery Baptist minister' (whom you mention and who came
from Barnby Dun in Yorkshire) was Thomas Playford  II.  His father, the
first Thomas Playford, lived and died in Barnby Dun. He was a foundling,
who never learned his parentage. I have done a good deal of research in
the UK on this matter, but without succeeding in tracing his ancestry.

Accordingly, the text needs to be amended for the Thomas Playfords up to
Sir Thomas Playford V. I can quote source material if you wish to check
on this.


Sincerely

Dr Phillip Playford AM

I am unsure of this, so I have refrained from changing anything yet. If someone wishes to verify this by contacting <phil.playford (at) doir.wa.gov.au> they may make the change. Alphax 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Original research. Once he convinces the South Australian parliament, he'll have convinced us. Ambi 14:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. In researching this article I found no reference to Sir Thomas being no 5 in the long line of Thomas Playford's. Of course, if citeable proof is made, then I'll be happy to have it changed. --Roisterer 11:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The email above openly admits to having discovered this claim himself. The parliamentary website uses "IV", with no reputable sources claiming he was the fifth. When this guy convinces the parliament, he'll ahve convinced us. Ambi 11:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
He (IV) is, technically, Thomas Playford V. The original pastor that emigrated, Thomas I (the pastor), was the son of a Thomas Playford (a native of Yorkshire) and therefore would be II. History (and seemingly the family also) have ignored this technicality. That said, I'm still indifferent as to a change. michael talk 12:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gerrymander

From the Article.

Playford could point at the economic growth of the state as a reason for his continued election as Premier but he could also thank a gerrymander of his devising, known locally as a `Playmander', for his hold on power. The Playmander consisted of more seats being distributed in the less populated rural areas of the state (which were more likely to support the LCL) than in Adelaide and meant that he could comfortably remain in government even when Labor received a substantial majority of the popular vote.

This sounds like malapportionment to me, not Gerrymander. Both are bad of course, and I am not seeking to defend Playford, but having electorates of different sizes is called malapportionment, while gerrymandered elecotrates are usually the same size but have bizarre looking bounderies in order to have more seats with less votes (if that makes any sense). I would change it myself but I am not 100% sure that I am correct and I need sleep. Teiresias84 12:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From memory, it was a mix of both. It was known as the Playmander, in any case. Rebecca 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In my research for this and a range of related articles, the Playmander was usually referred to as a gerrymander (it may have been partly because playmander sounded better than playapportionment but that's what the research states). --Roisterer 02:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Or just because gerrymander has become a standard term for electoral fixes that the difference between boundary design and different voters-seats ratios gets overlooked? I've certainly seen discussions where people have mixed up the two. (A classic was "But there can't have been gerrymandering. The electorates were equal sizes!") The Bjelkemander appears to have had some gerrymandering but was also primarily based in the seats to voters ratio, but Playmander says "The Playmander was not devised by Playford, and was not a Gerrymander..." Also Australian electoral system#Gerrymandering and malapportionment says:
Australian history has seen very little gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, which have nearly always been drawn up by civil servants or independent boundary commissioners. But Australia has seen systematic malapportionment of electorates...
Often terms get confused, especially when the label is a term of abuse. (The "Tullymander" in Ireland is even more complicated to strictly define because multi-member constituencies are used and the key point in STV fixes is often neither the boundaries nor the number of voters per representative, but the number of representatives per constituency - 3 member seats maximise a party/coalition's representation in a strong area, 4 member seats help it to hold on in a weaker area.) Timrollpickering 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

The following edit (modification of existing text) was made in the section Fall From Power with cites added to verify the changes. Please read the original section for context.

The conservatism of the Liberal and Country League did not keep up with the expectations of a modern-day society and South Australia had become widely known as the "wowser" state. There was dissatisfaction with the restrictive drinking laws where hotels closed at 6pm and restaurants could not serve alcohol after 9:30pm; environmentalists campaigned for more natural parks and more 'green' practices; police powers stood strong with 'no loitering' legislation remaining in place; gambling was almost completely restricted; shops were not allowed to open on Sundays and holidays; public transport stopped at 10pm and Adelaide's street lights were turned off at 1am.

The following grounds were given for reverting the edit:

  • "Wowser" and "6pm closing" are WP articals so the edit should be in those not here.
  • Thomas Playford did not implement the measures.
  • The edit sensationalises the artical and is biased.
  • There is no need to state why Adelaide was conservative.
  • The edit is "silly" and a "mission against Playford".

My grounds for keeping the edit:

  • There is no mention elsewhere that Playfords policies resulted in the name wowser being widely applied to the state.
  • The edit gives insight into Playford as a person and the extent of Adelaide's conservatism under his leadership.
  • Although Playford did not implement the measures he supported them and resisted pressure for change from both the public and his own party.
  • The edit is relevant historical context of what was a major social issue at the time.
  • The edit is a statement of fact and (I hope) NPOV.

Should the edit be reinstated or not? If not, comment on whether it should it be included (with modifications to suit) in another article (ie:such as Adelaide or South Australia) would be appreciated. 10:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You added a notable quotes section with one quote about Playford, intending to ridicule him about the laws because of how bizarre it seems in a modern context. Then afterwards you decided to expand on this and sensationalise the text, which already showed that there was a lack of social reform under the Playford Government. I fail to see how this is anything but biased editing. michael talk 11:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How does the quote ridicule him? It was notable because of context and gave a more human view of Playford that is lacking in the article which I thought is rather clinical. Many bios have similar quotes and they are not reverted despite numerous attempts because they were actually said and verifiable. I didn't even ask for the quote to be replaced (although I thought it of interest and relevant) as a compromise to your views yet you still attack me for it.
I lived under those laws and to me they are just part of our history and no different than many laws we still have today. I might call the laws inapropriate for the times but never bizarre. Just because they were repealed doesn't mean they should not be mentioned.
In what way was the edit biased? It is factual verifiable information on an issue of historical importance. Maybe I am wrong and it is not relevant enough to be in the article, which is why it is RFC but it is not biased as far as I can see.
You accuse me of intentially ridiculing Playford and sensationalising the text. I suggest you assume good faith as I did for your revert. I tried to discuss the edit with you but apart from the initial message informing me you had reverted the edit the rest of the messages were accusations, which is why I brought it here rather than continue to discuss the issue with you. I will leave it in the hands of the WP community. Wayne 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Wayne, I support Michael's reversion of your additions, which were anecdotal and un-encyclopædic. Furthermore, the inclusion of a quotes section as trivia is something to be avoided in all articles, let alone a featured one. --cj | talk 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input cj. I have no problem with leaving the quote out. I included it mainly as it had (I thought) relevance. I thought it was normal to include this type of quote as it is identical in type to other quotes included in WP articals for other Australian politicians.
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by anecdotal and un-encyclopædic for the actual edit though as it still has the same style and content as the original paragraph. I only added a few important? facts not found anywhere else to the text, the wowser statement I added to the first sentence was something often mentioned in newspapers from the late 60's to mid 70's which i assume would have made it notable. Regards Wayne 04:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick query

Any reason in particular why an FA article has a lead devoid of in-line citations? Timeshift 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to ask, but since you have: There's no hard-fast rule against it, and there are many reviewers who actually request cites in leads. My personal view, as in academia, is that citations are not needed in the introduction as it is a summary of the article, where the cites are more appropriate.--cj | talk 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)