Talk:Australian Treasury related agencies spend 17000 AUD on massages in 2004

This is a very interesting story and not reported in the traditional news media as far as I am aware. Surely the one of the points of Wikinews is that there is opportunity to bring to light stories that might otherwise go unreported --CitizenBruce 12:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wacky News

Its funny. I can see why you put it to develop mr Mrmiscellanious because it was sitting in the political section iv edited it so it should appear in wacky news. Which generally doesnt have a point but to be funny. Whywhywhy 12:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not "Wacky". It is a serious point about disclosing expenditure within the Australian government. It is a big news day in Australia, but this little item is of interest to Australians who want to be informed about how the government is spending their money --CitizenBruce 12:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Large organisation often give massages to staff. This story belongs on today tonight or wackynews its not serious in its current contexts. Keeping staff relaxed is important and can increase productivity and all that sort of gargon. If you are going to report such a thing wheres the other sides point of view? Reasons and so forth.--Whywhywhy 12:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from but to some extent you are adding a layer of interpretation that is not intrinsic to the story itself which after all seems to be a bare statement of fact. The bottom line is that I find it genuinely interesting piece of news and it might be considered that the extent to which a government department should provide such services might indeed be debatable (hence the question in the house). --CitizenBruce 18:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• $17000 is not such a large amount of money to make this a big scandal. Not even on and Australian scale. Businesses offer their employees lunch-time massages to increase morale and productivity. From the reporting I have no reason to believe that somethings else went on here. This is "wacky" news at this point, unless you can provide more detail showing that there is more to the story. And please fix the spelling (grammar) mistake in the title! --vonbergm 19:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There article makes no suggestion of a scandal. It is just a small item of interest, not "wacky" just an item of interest. The government agencies are subject to scrutiny and here we see some reporting of this disclosure. --CitizenBruce 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, I agree it is an interesting point about what constitutes "news". Perhaps it is a very small story but I still found it of interest. --CitizenBruce 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, looking at Wikinews:Content_guide#What_is_.27news.27.3F, perhaps this story does not qualify as of interest to wide international audience (though in Australian context perhaps of minor interest). --CitizenBruce 19:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

It's much better now. Thanks for removing that stuff. Wackynews is a great thing here on Wikinews, but just remember it should always adhere to the other policies as well :) --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I intended it to be in the "funny file" (as I mentioned in the original edit comment), but I didn't have enough time to go chase down exactly what the category was called. I laughed out loud when I read it -- lucky I did, since I don't normally read the Questions on Notice. Dysprosia 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)