Talk:Julia Gillard/Archive 1

NPOV WP:Weight mass-purge

A significant portion of the article was reverted to remove information relating to youth scholarships. As Julia Gillard is the Minister for Education and conducting the most significant change to youth allowance in a number of decades it is relevant, and I can see no clear NPOV or WP:Weight issue. If the editor would like to provide more information on their conclusion, that would be conducive to discussion Rotovia (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

From the article:

Gillard expressed her exasperation with the leading Right figures backing Kim Beazley's leadership bid, claiming that they were using the media to undermine her [1].

Unfortunately, there's nothing at that link, due to the fact that News Limited doesn't keep it's articles free for too long. Is there an alternate link to support this?

This is weird!

The photograph is flipped. This is unprofessional and obvious. The photograph can be used on the LEFT side of the article in such cases so that the subject is looking into the article. --Jumbo 06:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The image does not look right when it's flipped. I've previously mentioned this on the image's talk page. - Ivan K

Motherhood and career as a top-ranking politician incompatible

yeah, that source does not say that, so either fix the source or leave it out (BLP)... Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That misquote has been in the article long before I ever looked at it.... --Peta 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This interview gives a pretty good summary of her personal life and background if anyone is interested in fleshing things out a bit more; I'm certainly not. --Peta 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Why did you restore it then? I'm happy for it to be there if it's legit, but it seems like a pretty controversial statement for anyone to make, let alone such a high ranking woman. I'll put the reference to the relationship becoming public back in, didn't realise I got rid of it, sorry. WikiTownsvillian 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Many people have heard about the Bulletin interview, I assumed that the person who added it had cited it at least vaguely correctly; even if she insists that it's a misquote (as she does in the McCrossin article from April - and the version in this article certainly was) she did say

If Peter Costello genuinely thought about it, could he be the mother of three children, have been treasurer for more than a decade and be the next in line to be prime minister? Could John Howard have been a mother to his children, as opposed to a father, and be in the position the is in today? The frank answer is no. Julia Gillard, The Bulletin, 23 January 2007. --Peta 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, lets add it to the article, although probably not in the personal section, it's a bit more significant than personal life when she's commenting on women in Australian politics, maybe it could be a section of it's own and we can also move the barren comments there? WikiTownsvillian 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Deputy Prime Minister yet

She is not the Deputy Prime Minister yet until Kevin Rudd is sworn in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.233.86 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite right.--RoryReloaded (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"As a consequence of the Labor Party's victory [...] Julia Gillard became Deputy Prime Minister-elect"

There's apparently been a bit of a tussle over calling Kevin Rudd Prime Minister-elect. While PM-elect seems reasonably well-established, Deputy-PM-elect seems to be an awkward attempt to sound encyclopedic. I won't touch it, since it caused so much heat elsewhere, but wouldn't "Julia Gillard will become Deputy Prime Minister" sound better? -- PaulxSA (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ms Gillard just referred to herself as "incoming Prime Minister" --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrosbie (talk • contribs)

Title and swearing in

She was sworn in today at 1pm by the Governor-General as a Federal Executive Councillor. This confers her the title of "The Honourable". She was subsequently sworn in as a Minister of the Crown with additional responsibility as Deputy Prime Minister. 203.7.140.3 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it that when she is formally sworn in as Australian Prime Minister, she will then become the Right Honourable Julia Gillard? Calibanu (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

"The Governor-General, Ms Quentin Bryce AC, will swear in the Hon. Julia Gillard MP as Prime Minister and the Hon. Wayne Swan MP as Deputy Prime Minister at Government House today at 12.30 pm. (ref: "MEDIA ADVISORY: SWEARING-IN CEREMONY AT GOVERNMENT HOUSE".) --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 02:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrosbie (talk • contribs)

Most definitely NOT "the Right Honourable", simply "the Honourable", as she's been since 2007 anyway. The last Australian PM who was the Rt Hon was Malcolm Fraser (1975-83). Since the passage of the Australia Act 1986, Australia has no longer any recourse to or relationship with the Privy Council. For a list of the last 6 remaining Australian Rt Hons, see The Right Honourable#Australia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Affirmation

Whether people being sworn in to federal office swear an oath or make an affirmation is entirely their choice [2]. It's absolutely non-controversial (except maybe for those folk who see a crown portfolio being somehow connected with God, possibly stemming from the Queen being Supreme Governor of the Church of England). I really see no point in mentioning that she made an affirmation. It's factual, but lots of people do this. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Two third of the ministers made an affirmation, so it is common. It is, however, also notable to non-Australians who don't realise how much of a non-issue religion is in Australian politics. Sad mouse (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. However, mentioning that any particular person - whether it be Julia Gillard or anyone else - took an affirmation almost suggests they're doing something out of the ordinary. Information about the relative proportions of ministers who choose oaths vs. affirmations might be suitable for Government of Australia or Cabinet of Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Many people would be interested to know. This is an encyclopaedia; it's meant to be thorough. (Huey45 (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

What makes it interesting to those who would be interested? Is it the god thing? We already know that she describes herself as not religious. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it was mentioned in newspapers shows that there are probably people interested in it. People would most likely see it as inferior to a proper oath. (Huey45 (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

Which people? Those who already know that she's not religious and just want more ammunition? While my opinion, like everyone else's, doesn't count on Wikipedia, I would prefer someone to honestly make an affirmation than dishonestly make an oath. The latter must happen a lot. So, is that what you want? For people to see it as an honourable thing to do? HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter which people? It's not as if we're going to hide information from the article just to annoy certain groups, is it? If the newspaper journalists thought it was interesting enough to include in their articles, then it's interesting enough to include in the encyclopaedia as well. (Huey45 (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

Journalists also thought it interesting to "report" that Tim wakes at 5.30 am to blowdry her hair, or that she calls her parents every Sunday. That information, too, is not worthy of reporting here. We don't have a "tabloid test" for inclusion in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

hahahaha, that's pretty funny, WWGB. I wasn't counting on them reporting such trivial details. Nevertheless, I was interested to know that she hasn't sworn an oath to this country and common sense would dictate that there are probably other people who are also interested. (Huey45 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

It's maybe relevant in the cabinet article (ie. that 2/3rds of the cabinet affirmed. In individual cabinet members' articles, I'm much less certain: but I'm using this politician as a benchmark of oath-taking-importance - taking an affirmation doesn't seem to come close to being that interesting. (Disclaimer: non-Australian, but Kiwi, living in the UK). TFOWR 12:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. A suggestion. Modify that paragraph in the Personal life section to read something like "Gillard is a "non-practising Baptist" and "not religious". In line with this, and as a majority of other Australian politicians do when being appointed to parliamentary positions, on principle she made an affirmation when sworn in as Prime Minister rather than a religiously based oath." HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is very much WP:UNDUE. Do we report that she does not attend church or say grace before meals? She's not religious. That does not require to be expanded or elaborated. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact she took an affirmation is important information, but entirely appropriate for a footnote, rather than inline. Donama (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Acting Prime Minister

From time to time, she will act as PM, as all deputies do. The present occasion is noteworthy, being the first time a woman has ever been acting PM in Australia; but future such occasions won't be notable. Altering the lead to call her the Acting PM etc is silly. We should make note of this in the body of the article, and perhaps a mention within the lead para, but not by going so far as to start off with titling her "Acting Prime Minister", which is a very temporary designation. Her principal and ongoing title is "Deputy Prime Minister" and Minister for X, Y and Z. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

She has now been Acting PM a lot. I have updated the article so it doesn't sound like she has been Acting PM for three days only. --Surturz (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The length of time she is acting PM is relevant to her bio as she continues to be touted as prospective replacement PM, and given the months she has spent in this role while PM Rudd has been overseas, during which several local political crises have occurred, her performance as A/PM is in the public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.176.108 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Acting PM says/means nothing really. Timeshift (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Cf. Tim Fischer, John Anderson and Mark Vaile, all of whom acted for Howard at various times. We make no mention at all of these acting periods in their articles. Granted, there was - and is - nothing specially noteworthy about a deputy acting for the PM from time to time. That, after all, is what a deputy does. The only thing that sets Gillard apart from her predecessors is her sex. She was the first female to be appointed deputy PM, and the first female to act as PM. But once we cover those things they're done deals, and we don't need to keep on making the same point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

British nationality

Someone's just added British to her nationality, which makes it look as if she's a dual national. I rather doubt that. The Heather Hill and other cases show conclusively that Britain is a foreign power for constitutional purposes, and members/senators have to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to renounce their former citizenship (which is just not possible in some cases, but the UK is not one of them). I appreciate that nationality and citizenship are different concepts, but Gillard migrated here at a young age and we'd need some proof that she still regards herself as a British national as well as an Australian national, particularly as she's the Deputy PM of Australia. Any objections to this being removed? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would add, that in terms of British or Australian law, the terms "nationality" and "citizenship" are identical in meaning. Post Sue v Hill, I am sure she would have had to renounce her citizenship to be elected to Parliament. Thus, having renounced her British citizenship, she would no longer legally be a British national. Admittedly, there is a difference between "nationality" in terms of the law, and "nationality" in terms of identity. However, that distinction is not captured by the "nationality" vs. "citizenship". So, the claim should be removed. (Personally, as a dual Australian-British national who has no intention of renouncing either citizenship -- but then, I have no parliamentary intentions either -- I think Sue v Hill was a very stupid decision.) --SJK (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

However, by your standards, all MPs can be Australian and nothing else. And I don't think that's fair. Timeshift (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my standards, its the standards of the High Court's interpretation of the Australian Constitution. As I have said, I think the High Court's interpretation is dumb. But, the law is the law, however dumb we may think it is. --SJK (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you have the same opinion if, rather than being born a Briton, Hill had been born a German or a Japanese, and the case occurred in 1942, say, rather than the 1990s? The fact that we're never going to go to war with Britain doesn't alter the basic principle involved: those who make our laws should have allegiance to one and only one country, Australia. If their country of birth simply won't let them renounce their citizenship/nationality, there's nothing anyone can do about that. But if they've done all they can within the limits of that country's law, that's all they can reasonably do, and they shouldn't be debarred from our Parliament in such cases. The issue with Hill was that she had never made any attempt to renounce her British citizenship. As soon as it became a problem, she wasted no time, so it was obvious that the reason she kept it for so long never had anything to do with some deep principle - but she did it too late to avoid being chucked out of the Senate. She could have avoided the whole problem by attending to the matter a little earlier than she did. But of course she didn't have the benefit of the High Court judgment at that stage. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Gillard can not be British - the Constitution of Australia does not follow any Member of Parliament to have dual citizenship. Gillard must had renounced her British Citizenship before she entered Parliament in 1998. According to Section 1, Part IV, 43-44 of the Constitution, 'A member of either House of the Parliament shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a member of the other House. Any person who 'Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power;' [3] Scanorama (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the point of the argument, though. If someone were to come up with some evidence that she still has British citizenship, and she'd never made any attempt to divest herself of it, she'd be in exactly the same position as Heather Hill was. After Hill started serving in the Senatebecame a Senator-elect, it was discovered she was still a British citizen, and the High Court made it quite clear that the UK is just as much a foreign power as Mongolia or Uruguay are, so her election was deemed invalid and out she wentshe never became a Senator. You can't say that just because being under allegiance to a foreign power is not permitted under the Constitution, it's not possible for such a person to be elected. It is possible, as the Heather Hill case showed. Your argument is akin to saying that because murder is outlawed, it's not possible for anyone to murder anyone else. We all know that's not true. If Chris Watson were around today, he'd never have got to be Prime Minister or even an MP, unless he took steps to acquire Australian citizenship before being elected to parliament, because he was born to German parents in Chile. There are still doubts about King O'Malley being a British subject; he claimed to have been born in Canada, but there's evidence it actually happened on the US side of the border. He'd have some trouble today too. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Given her citizenship status affects her ability to hold her job, I think saying she is British without some fairly credible references is a WP:BLP violation. --Surturz (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said at the start, just not so consisely. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

@JackofOz: in regards to your comment "Would you have the same opinion if, rather than being born a Briton, Hill had been born a German or a Japanese, and the case occurred in 1942, say, rather than the 1990s?". I would have no inherent problem with a dual German-Australian or dual Japanese-Australian citizen being an MP during the Second World War. Because, first of all, there is no reason why e.g. a German citizen could not support the Allies in the Second World War, due to opposition to Nazism. And, even if they hypothetically, a German-Australian MP supported the Axis side, you could then justify removing them from Parliament on the basis of their views, not their citizenship. Or, if we consider it undemocratic or illiberal to remove MPs on the basis of their views: we could simply either (1) let them remain an MP, but exclude them from any meetings of Parliament where war secrets were discussed, or (2) even allow them access to war secrets, but keep them under sufficient surveillance or restrictions to prevent them from conveying those secrets to the public or enemy agents. An important rule in war and intelligence, is that its not the people you suspect who are the problem, its the people you don't. A dual citizen MP would be such an obvious target of suspicion as to be harmless. --SJK (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy! Deciding which meetings/documents an MP should have access to based on their dual citizenship raises all sorts of other problems. That would really be the thin edge of the wedge. We'd have 1st class MPs, 2nd class MPs, and so on. And that discrimination would be quickly emulated out there in electorate land because it would now have official sanction. It would certainly breach all sorts of general anti-discrimination laws and I'd be extremely surprised if it didn't breach some rules about parliamentarians' rights in particular. They (whoever "they" are) couldn't just unilaterally decree that Joe Schmidt MP is now a 2nd class MP. And what if the Prime Minister happened to have dual citizenship that he/she was unable to renounce? All those laws/rules would need to be amended before it ever got off the ground, and the affected parties would have a lot to say about it during the debates. As would their supporters outside parliament, and the civil liberties groups. Even if it were somehow made legal, it would be utterly unworkable in this day and age. To Australia's shame, we interned a large number of Australian citizens (well, they were technically British subjects then, but Australian citizens in principle) who happened to be of German descent. Most of them weren't even dual citizens, but were born here. This happened during both wars. I'm almost sure Japanese-Australians suffered similar fates in WWII. It became generally known about only after the war, and those who were aware of it at the time probably felt it was justified in the circumstances, and it was better to err on the side of national defence even if it meant grossly violating individuals' rights. If we declared war today, though, I can't see a similar internment of Australian citizens happening. And if it did, there'd be a huge outcry. Those episodes were bad enough, but to try to limit the power of the people's own representatives would be asking for trouble. It wouldn't get past first base. The voters know about the backgrounds of their representatives when they elect them, and they give an unconditional "Yes" vote, not a conditional one that only applies while we're not at war. I don't know anything about your age, your background, or where you're from, but I have to say it really surprises me - almost shocks me - to hear such suggestions being made in 2008. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As interested as I am in this discussion, I do not believe this is the correct venue for it. --Surturz (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sue v Hill established that for the purposes of standing for Parliament the UK constituted a foreign power and therefore one cannot hold dual British and Australian citizenship, if they wish to be an MP. Julia Gillard therefore cannot be a British dual citizen or she would not be entitled to stand for election Rotovia (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't for a moment believe Julia Gillard owes a skerrick of allegiance to the UK, but Sue v. Hill does not, of itself, say anything about whether Julia Gillard or any other person currently in parliament is complying with or in breach of the law. Sue v. Hill does not physically prevent a person who is a citizen of a foreign power from standing for election or from being elected (just as the law against murder does not physically prevent people from murdering other people). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Religion

For more recent discussion on this point see the later section (Talk:Julia Gillard#Atheism) Donama (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone provide a source that says Gillard is actually an atheist? I couldn't find anything that says what her religion is. Scanorama (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While like many Australian MPs it is likely the Deputy Prime Minister is an Atheist, there is no source to confirm this and frankly the question would be considered highly inappropriate in the Australian media Rotovia (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rotovia, I'm not sure I can agree with you on your contention that many Australian MP's are atheists. I've never done a poll, nor seen a break down or graph but there is a fairly consistent theme of high ranking Australian politicians being involved with churches.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe all but five federal MPs don't attend the parliamentary prayer group - however Rudd is one of the five. Timeshift (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a majority, nor can I provide a source for the reasons I expressed, but I know anecdotally the number is higher than many would expect. That aside, I don't see any compelling sources to list Julia Gillard's religion Rotovia (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Could it be the Prime Minister is too busy? Could it be that he is of a denomination that does not regard a parliamentary prayer group as useful? Could it be that religion of politicians in Australia is not a noteable issue, but instead a private issue given that it is rarely talked about, asides from the visits to churches?--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They're atheists if they don't join the parliamentary prayer club? Are you trying to troll here? (Huey45 (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

Highest ranking woman

The article says that at one point she was the highest ranking woman in the Australian Government. The Queen is the highest ranking woman in our government. Perhaps it should say that she was the highest ranking Australian woman in the government (as the Queen is not Australian). Jleonau (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate as the Queen is head of state, but not of government, and her position of commander-in-chief and queen of Australia are not government positions. This is further complicated by the fact another woman (Quentin Bryce) holds these positions in the Queen's absence, and that she is a part of Parliament, but again not the government. I certainly don't see any issue, though, with the inclusion of "Australian" Rotovia (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Commander-in-Chief is the Governor-General, not the Queen (see s.68 of the Constitution). The Queen, and not the Governor-General, is part of the Parliament (s.1). Neither the Queen nor the Governor-General are part of the Government. Julia Gillard is indeed the highest ranking woman ever in any Australian Government. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

s61 makes the Govenor-General the government and s62 and s64 allow the GG to expand the government to include ministers through the FEC. So the GG is a member of the government. Rotovia (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if the Queen and Governor General don't count, calling her "the highest ranking woman in the government" would mislead anyone unfamiliar with the workings of the Australian government. (Huey45 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

Excellent parliamentary performer

Gillard has established that she has a reputation as a very good parliamentary performer. Does this rate a mention? This author of this article says that "Her speech on the Victorian fires last week was the best delivered in parliament, bar none". (I'm not sure, but I think he is referring to this speech). --Surturz (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the article could mention referenced quotes from reputable sources who calim she does hold those qualities, but obviously not in the context of opinion stated as fact Rotovia (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been vandalised. Is it possible a mod can revert those changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PharaohKatt (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly there seems to be fairly persistent vandalism of this article. Perhaps this article should be semi-protected as a number of the edits are by anonymous IP addresses.--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Spill

RE: The protected Notice : "Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until June 24, 2010 because the article should remain reasonably stable until after the spill."

Can this be modified? The Labor Party does not have "spills" this is a Liberal Party procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.255.231 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Challenge of Kevin Rudd for Prime Ministership

Julia Gillard is due to challenge Kevin Rudd for leadership of the Labor party, and the role of Prime Minister, June 24th 9am . Watch this space Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And there it is... She's PM. 124.171.99.70 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Urgent work required on this article

It's far too short. The personal life is two lines long, for example. Tony (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's got access to book or journalistic sources about her life and career? There are going to be a lot of visits very soon. Tony (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Small pickings but

Not vital at all, but some personal details for later...she's been with Mathieson since March 2006 ref is [4] The Herald Sun article "Julia Gillard's man", by Ben Packham, December 2006; and her previous partner was Labor MP Craig Emerson. 110.33.247.71 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A note on timing and protocol

If Gillard wins the caucus vote, this would make her leader of the party. She would not become Prime Minister until sworn in by the Governor-General. That could be some hours later. Take care not to preempt events.121.45.199.81 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a nicety that might be hair-splitting in this very-much summary style. But thanks for pointing this out. Tony (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very good point - I can recall the reverting for David Cameron and Nick Clegg and suspect there will have to be reverting here. She isn't Prime Minister until she's sworn in. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. She hasn't been sworn in yet. Mr Rudd is still the PM. --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 01:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrosbie (talk • contribs)

Foreign born

The article states, "she has been the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the first woman and the first foreign-born person to hold this position." it later states that if she becomes prime minister on June 24th that would make her "the first woman" in such a position. Should it say, "the first woman and the first foreign-born in that position [of prime minister]"? Or (pardon my ignorance) has Australia already had a foreign born prime minister but not a foreign born deputy p.m.?

Otherwise, I believe that, and would recommend that "If elected by the Labor caucus she will become the 27th Prime Minister of Australia and the country's first female prime minister." should be amended to say "would become the...country's first female and first foreign-born prime minister" This would be of interest in general and also in particular in e.g. the United States where McCain's having been born in Panama (but in a U.S. base there) and false rumors about Hawaii-born Obama's "birth in Kenya" are so much discussed given the law (and to an extent, obsession) here in the U.S. with where the person was, geographically, when they were zero days old. If editors agree I hope you'll make the change.Harel (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The USA is the only country I know whose elected leader has to be born in the country. In all my relatively long life in Australia, it has neve been an issue here. To even mention it in relation to a country other than the USA is to introduce US centrism. Being"the first female..." is important to some people. Worth a mention. HiLo48 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My friend, I'm not the one who introduced the idea; the only reason I know she is "foreign born" is that the entry already stated she was the "first foreign born deputy PM" which (unless that too was put in only by someone from the US) suggests it's hardly US-centric. Now that she's PM it's of even wider interest.108.8.46.133 (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a side issue for this page, but I need to correct your statement, HiLo48. There is no requirement for the US President to be born in the country. The US President must be "a natural born citizen of the USA". Any child born to parents at least one of whom is an American citizen is an American citizen from birth - no matter where the child is born. It's never been tested in a court, but the general thinking is that this is all that's necessary to satisfy the "natural-born citizen" clause. There are some cases where simply being born in the USA is not enough to make one an American citizen; but there are no cases afaik where being born to at least one American parent does not make one an American citizen. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that if an American parent is under a certain age when their child is born the latter does not automatically become a US citizen - as I understand it this is the background to the birther jokers' case against Obama and his US citizenship entirely hinges on whether or not he was born in the US since his mother was underage. But this is all rather off topic. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically that's true but it's only because Deputy PM has only been an official position since 1968. Look at actual PMs: Chris Watson was born in Chile; George Reid and Andrew Fisher were born in Scotland; Joseph Cook and Billy Hughes were born in England. I agree with HiLo, it's a non-issue most of the time. (It's only when someone like Jackie Kelly forgets to renounce their citizenship of birth that it becomes significant.) I'd also note that none of those PMs' pages mention their foreign birth in the first paragraph and I don't see why it's any more notable for Gillard (since she came over at 4yo). Let's take it out of the lede and let the readers scroll down to "Early Life" for that. Nick (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, stating Gillard's place of birth in this article is as important as it is for any other biographical article on Wikipedia. That she may or may not become Prime Minister some day (even today) makes it no more important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 - I think "Welsh-born" looks silly in the first sentence, it's undue weight. The first sentence should be the one-sentence summary which a quality encyclopedia would give (something like "Julia Gillard is the current prime minister of Australia, and Australia's first female prime minister"). Compare the foreign born premiers Mike Rann, Kristina Keneally, Don Dunstan, Joh Bjelke-Petersen etc. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and removed per WP:BOLD. --Elekhh (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

WRONG DATE

The article states Gillard graduated from the University of Melbourne in 1986. This is not correct. She graduated with an LLB in 1987 and a BA in 1990. References. 1) university of melbourne site: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/alumni/gradnet/2007/election_1207.html 1)

 Done CTJF83 pride 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Any idea when she'll be sworn in?

I'm trying to keep an eye on this for WP:ITN, with a view to getting it up on the Main Page, but because of various rules and procedures, it can't go up until she's officially sworn in, so can anyone give an approximate time (UTC) so I know if it's worth staying up for a while yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the TV - in 15 minutes.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I can prolong my bedtime by 15 minutes, I suppose! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it, some of the print sources are now saying "later today". But I think it has to be within the next 90 minutes as Rudd surely can't face question time in 90 minutes as a lame duck PM. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggest simultaneous nom for WP:DYK? 203.7.140.3 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Barring a monumental expansion of the article, it won't meet DYK requirements. The swearing in is supposed to be 12:30pm AEST (ie pretty much now). Hack (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

She has just been sworn in by the Governor-General, I think the article definitely needs to be updated now.

Whenbongoscollide (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Atheist?

For more recent discussion on this point see the later section (Talk:Julia Gillard#Atheism) (which I point out because I inadvertently directed some edit summaries here) Donama (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I read a comment somewhere that she was atheist. True?--72.187.197.196 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

For this article, it doesn't matter whether it's true, but whether it can be verified by a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-practising Baptist according to this link and this link. Hack (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This information should be in the article. Kevin Rudd has an entire section dedicated to society and religion. -- samj _in^out 09:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- samj _in^out 09:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Rudd's religion is a major part of his persona. In Gillard's case, it's not. It hardly makes sense to spend a whole section saying she isn't very religious. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank heavens. I have to say that a compulsory slot in infoboxes for religion, and the need to negate it explicitly, is a POV message in itself. Best just left out of there. Tony (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Added this source where she says she does not believe in God. Its also here about 8 minutes into the radio clip. Metallurgist (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Now Prime Minister

It's just after 1pm AEST. "Prime Minister Julia Gillard" is being photographed by the press. --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 03:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Official photo?

pretty self explanatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.101.91 (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

yep, she looked a good deal more stylish when speaking to the press last night. But I'm sure we'll see some good official pics soon. 83.254.158.105 (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth government photos are copyright, so I very much doubt we'll see an official photo on this page.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone could try to get the OTRS permission for at least one photo.--Avala (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New picture

I fail to see how the new Gillard pic meets Wikipedia guidelines via copyright. Could the uploader please explain its copyright status otherwise it may be removed. GJGardner (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears to be a copyvio. Please note that it's been uploaded to Wikicommons though. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the photo for speedy deletion to stop it from being reproduced more widely. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Any objections regarding replacing it with the former until a newer one can be found? GJGardner (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The image is still in use at Prime_Minister_of_Australia and it appears there's an OTRS ticket explaining the permission. -- samj _in^out 10:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Im still sceptial regarding its copyright status and ownership, possibly an experienced editor at commons should check its status and make a decision. GJGardner (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that that photo is from a Monash University website, the university would have to release it into the public domain, which is rather unlikely. It's also likely that its an Australian Government or ALP portrait of Gillard provided as part of her official bio for the conference. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Likely the editor used the OTRS permission sent to try and make sure it isn't deleted but the editor also uploaded a large logo and did the same thing but no OTRS permission was confirmed. Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case it's vanished... hopefully another decent hi-res shot will appear one of these days. -- samj _in^out 10:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Any chance someone might approach her minders for a copyright-free pic? It's very much in their interests that her article have one, so they'll probably be obliging. Her electoral office in Melbourne might be a good place to start, methinks. Tony (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal life section seriously inadequate

It's embarrassing. The bit about no children would be fine in a more appropriately sized section, but laid bare in a three-line section, it panders to the notion that women are defined by motherhood. Unfortunate. Tony (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the BBC's online news-site has already used bits of this article (journalists are so lazy, aren't they). But what a pity the article is so incomplete. Tony (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not just small. It's negative. It doesn't tell us what she is. It tells us what she isn't, based clearly on the biases of those recording these matters and the English language. Instead of not married, how about single? I wish I could think of positive words for no kids and no religion. Our language IS biased towards particular traditional positions, isn't it? Can anyone else help please? HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The term 'single' now usually means 'not in a relationship'. Gillard is in a long-term relationship, so we shouldn't describe her as single. The positive term for no kids is childfree; however, we can't use that term to describe her, as it is not neutral and would thus violate WP:NPOV. Her religious views do not seem clear - would it be fair to describe her as secular? Jim Michael (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Gillard's religious position is similar to many other Australians. At the last census 64% declared themselves (or their children) to be in one of the Christian denominations (this includes Baptist) but only 7.5% attend church regularly. This is very difficult to describe in the small number of words that would have worked 60 years ago or in other countries. For a single word, secular isn't bad. Re children, her partner's article tells he has one (presumably) now adult child. Maybe this could lead to a better construction about the couple, rather than just being about Gillard. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Why "secular"? What exactly does it mean in this context? IMO, the solution is not to have the field in this case. It would be a typical case of overcategorisation by infobox (OBI). Tony (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Page views

Yesterday 648 visits; today 17,000 and counting. Tony (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And for those interested in how urgent it is to get this article into good shape, day by day it has been 648 visits, then 17,000, then 207,000, and today thus far 51,000. Tony (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, lazy journalists have also picked up the fallacious assertion stated here earlier that her father was a coal miner. Coal miner’s daughter becomes Aussie PM WWGB (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, we should not underestimate the increasing power of WP in public life. Perhaps it's just one reason we all care so much about the project. Tony (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit, please

Can someone please fix the glaringly stupid gramatical error in the first line? Australia has not had 27 Prime Ministers since July 24th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arianddu (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Socialist left?

The ALP's unchanged names for its factions are something of a problem when aired in an international context such as this. There is nothing particularly socialist or left-wing about the faction, generally, and the impression is "reds under the bed" when used without explanation in an article such as this. Ms Gillard is likely to be as mainstream conservative as her party. Please think about the need not to mislead foreign readers in this respect. Tony (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't be using the official name of the faction on the basis that foreign users don't understand Australian politics; it's no less confusing than our particular use of "Liberal". A better solution, in my book, would be to make the Socialist Left article not suck, so it explains this very point if anyone is curious. Rebecca (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below under "Political views section". Tony (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010

(UTC)

Julis Gillard is a member of the Ferguson Left, not the Socialist Left.

Happy to change it if you can show us a source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more detail on the faction thing is now in the Political Positions section of the article, although it must still be quite confusing to people not familiar with ALP machinations. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Tolerance of interest in her private life

She is tolerant of public interest in her personal life, stating that "People want to know who you are, the shape of your life. That is legitimate."[citation needed]

Do we really need to say this? It's the norm for there to be interest in the private lives of public figures, and they have arrangements for dealing with requests for information etc. It would be noteworthy if she did not tolerate such interest. But not if she does. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Further, the quote doesn't have a source. Unsourced information is one thing; purporting to directly quote someone without any verification is another. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Almer mater

It's obviously an American infobox, even though that country doesn't have PMs. Australians don't have almer maters. In my 60+ years here I have never heard an Australian described as having an Almer mater. And, a look at the link for Almer mater says it's for one's first degree, i.e. one cannot have two almer maters.

One of Australia's most interesting PM's of the past two decades (Keating) didn't even have one.

Let's not bias the article with American obsessions with religion and which college people went to.

Let's drop Almer mater. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. I've raised the issue of removing "Almer Mater" before, without luck. How do we replace it with something Australian like "University"? Peter Ballard (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, remove it altogether. Good idea. Save the infobox for stuff people care about. (I'm not a fan of infoboxes to begin with anyway). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, it's "alma mater". And the plural is almae matres.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also for the record, she never graduated from the University of Adelaide. WWGB (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another reason infoboxes are ham-fisted and should be used with great caution. Tony (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Especially {{Infobox officeholder}}, which is a kitchen sink of every possible parameter that could be needed for any officeholder worldwide, from Prime Minister of Canada to dogcatcher in the south of Tasmania. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The "deliberately barren" thing

I didn't add it but this was removed straight after it was added to the 'Personal' section and I tend to agree with the removal, because it creates a negative bias. However, this does belong somewhere in the article I think. It is notable that not one but two politicians criticised her lack of children. This has implication of unequal (unrealistic) expectations, especially of women in positions of power. Donama (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Gillard's lack of parenting experience has led Liberal senators Bill Heffernan ref>Harrison, Dan (2 May 2007). "I'm sorry, Heffernan tells Gillard". smh.com.au. Retrieved 25 June 2010.</ref> and George Brandis ref>"Brandis lashes out at childless Gillard". smh.com.au. 26 January 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2010.</ref> to question her ability to comment on family issues.

Mea culpa: I endeavoured to expand this section with reference to Liberal comments about Gillard's childlessness as follows:

Gillard's lack of parenting experience has led Liberal senators Bill Heffernan [5] and George Brandis [6] to question her ability to comment on family issues.

I believe this information is relevant and important as it is typical of the challenges faced by single or childless women, especially in politics. User:HiLo48 chose to delete this on the grounds that it was negative point scoring.[7] I would appreciate the opinions of other editors about the suitability of this content. WWGB (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. My negativity comment was pointing out that almost everything in the Personal life section is a negative statement. For example, she isn't married. She doesn't have kids. She isn't religious, etc. The section is badly written. It needs to say what she is, not what she isn't. And the fact that two political opponents attempted to score political points over one of her characteristics says more about them than her. Put it in their articles, not hers. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In terms of NPOV, giving the "barren" issue oxygen in the article is a problem to me. I can talk further about this is anyone thinks it's worth more than a passing reference buried within a section. Tony (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I find your arguments against including this compelling. Let's leave it out for now. Donama (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What's negative about being unmarried, without kids and non-religious? -- samj _in^out 23:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Socially, nothing in my book, but in language, traditional values show out. The prefixes un- and non-, and the word without, are all negatives. We need to find language that says it's positive. or at least neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

un, non and without are not inherently bad; that's a ridiculous suggestion. We shouldn't be trying to hide facts about her life just for fear of making her unpopular. Anyway, Joan of Arc was never married and people still thought she was a good leader. (Huey45 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

No, there was nothing inherently bad about the facts being presented. It was the writing style that was the problem. What I wrote above was that "almost everything in the Personal life section is a negative statement. For example, she isn't married. She doesn't have kids. She isn't religious, etc. The section is badly written." When writing about someone we should try to say what she is, not what she isn't. It' was really just me being a bit fussy about language. But anyway, since I wrote that, more material has arrived in that section. It's nicer now, but still has a way to go. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Could it just be that there's not anything good about her personal life? Why should we pretend that this woman is a saint?(Huey45 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

Clearly, a sainthood is not one of her goals. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Huey, I note that you have deleted another editor's comment on the basis of it being a personal attack, and have drawn on WP:NPA to justify it. I understand why you did that and certainly have no problem with it, but I think you need to look a little broader, at the fact that this article is an article about a living person. This means that WP:BLP comes into play. Everything you say about the subject must be neutral, verifiable and not original research. While it was only on the Talk page, your comment "Could it just be that there's not anything good about her personal life?" is anything but neutral. While you are perfectly entitled to hold that view (although it does seem a little silly), it cannot be your goal to reflect that view in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The "barren" comment was just pure insult. It didn't add any information. It was just insult. It belongs more on Heffernan's article than here, as it says more about the type of person he is.--Lester 08:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, you're right; it does need to be neutral. I would certainly want it to be. My comment was in response to what you said, which seemed to suggest that we need to hunt down nice things to say about her. If it's too difficult to find positive aspects of her personal life, then perhaps there weren't any in the first place. If there are though, then obviously they should be mentioned. (Huey45 (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

Oh dear Huey, how can I get this concept across to you? I was not "suggesting that we need to hunt down nice things to say about her." I was saying that the article needed to say what she is, not what she isn't. For example, rather than saying "HiLo isn't a saint", it would be more helpful to readers to say "HiLo is an axe murderer." See the difference between the "isn't" statement and the "is" statement? That's what I meant by positive language. It doesn't have to be a positive fact. It just has to say what someone IS, rather than what they're not. (PS: I haven't been charged with axe murder yet.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Relationships other than Mathieson

Responding to the edit summary from this edit, I would strongly object to the removal of the Emerson relationship, at least, in this article. It is entirely relevant that the PM had a prior relationship with one of her ministerial team. It is interesting that Abbott's pre-marital sex before he was a public person is somehow relevant and important but mentioning Gillard's relationships with fellow Labor luminaries is "tabloid". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Being in a serious relationship with a person who is now a Minister in her government is significant, and it is something that was well-covered by the media at the time. It is difficult with politicians to draw the line between appropriate and overly extensive coverage of their personal life. But I don't think this article has any real problems there.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of this "relationship". Given the good faith of editors here, I've no doubt something happened, but what? Relationship is a tricky word. It has many meanings. I am curious. Did she live with the guy for a while, was it a one night stand, or did they just hang out a bit? I'm happy to see something mentioned here, so long as it is well sourced, but can we find a more precise description than "relationship"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They were well known to be dating, and for quite a while, too. Rebecca (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To put it indelicately, they were sleeping together. In 2006 Gillard said "My relationship with Craig Emerson was a very important one to me. Being involved with a colleague has got its down side in the sense that drawing the line between what's work and what's not work becomes increasingly blurred. Craig and I were staying together at a hotel and I'd managed to forget to pack my contact lens holder. So I was just storing the contact lenses at the bottom of a glass, which wasn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to do. Er, so...in the bathroom, this glass with the contact lenses and a bit of solution in them. So, you know, during the course of the night, Craig gets up and thinking it's water, grabs the glass and drinks it. So I was wandering around National Conference blind for the next morning. I did have to give the Health Policy Report at the podium not basically able to see my notes or see the audience. Craig and I lived in different states in very demanding positions. And in the hurly-burly of the Labor world, ultimately it was just too difficult. I'm not involved in a relationship now, and you know, your, sort of, your life history rolls on." [8] WWGB (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification WWGB. I see no problem with something about that being put in the article, but we must still be careful about the word relationship. I wish we had a better one than relationship. I know Gillard herself used it in that quote, but only AFTER explaining what it was in greater detail. She used it as single word to refer back to something she had just explained. Without that sort of explanation, it's a word with unclear meaning. (I'm a teacher, and we often talk about building relationships with our students. One hopes they are never THAT kind of relationship!) So, I'm happy with the detailed content, but not the simplification to one uncertain word. Trouble is, some editors might quite validly argue that those many words would put too much emphasis on just one part of her life. That could be overcome by getting more content about other things in her current life. So, let's get on to that. Where does she live now, when not in Canberra? Maybe her footy enthusiasm. (No. 1 ticket holder for the Western Bulldogs, I think.) Other hobbies? HiLo48 (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, there has been some jousting in this section of the article by people who seem to have not read these comments. The relationship thing clearly happened and is important to some people. To be a little blunt, I suspect some would like to suggest that she "slept her way to the top". To more objective people, it may be just interesting and relevant. Others seem not to care at all. I guess that, since Gillard has been open about these periods of her life, and the history is sourced, it should be included. We just have to be very careful that it's not written in a way that her opponents would want for the scoring of political points. I'm trying to decide if I think that an earlier wording is objective enough. It said "She has acknowledged previous relationships with..." HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Too bad if it makes her unpopular; this is an encyclopaedia, not a Labor party advertisement. If it's notable and a reliable source is available, then it should be included. Your suggestion of "not written in a way that her opponents would want" seems to suggest deliberately manipulating the article to pander to the Labor party. It should simply be written with a Neutral Point of View, just like every other article in the encyclopaedia. (Huey45 (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

Of course we want neutrality. That was my point. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, I misinterpreted what you said. (Huey45 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

I am most concerned that the fact JG is a woman is significantly changing the priorities of the article. It should not. Tony (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard's father was not a miner...

He was a policeman and clerk: [9] 90.36.211.162 (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed here [10] too, Gillard only says her grandfather and uncles were miners. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:90.36.211.162, while you are correct, your logic is wrong. Many people change careers throughout their lifetime and it would be particularly easy to switch between miner/police/clerk, since none of them require any qualifications or special skills. (Huey45 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC))

Police officer certainly does require significant training (equivalent of qualification). I don't see your point, Huey. Donama (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Training is not the same as a qualification. Training is only undertaken if someone is actually accepted; whereas a university degree or other proper qualifications are obtained prior to getting a job. My point was that being a clerk or police officer doesn't exclude the possibility of being a miner.

Donama, it would probably be best if you limited your comments on this page to suggestions about the article rather than asking people to explain things that you didn't understand the first time around, particularly since this is such a busy talk page.(Huey45 (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

Claims not supported by sources

In this edit I've removed the following material:

distancing herself from the Rudd government's policies regarding problems with the Home Insulation Program, a significant delay to a planned carbon emissions reduction scheme,(ref:name="wsj" Pannett, Rachel (23 June 2010). "Australia's Rudd Calls Vote on Leadership". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 23 June 2010.) a move to introduce mandatory Internet filtering,(ref:name="smh" Moses, Asher (18 June 2010). "Toxic net filters 'shelved until after election'". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 24 June 2010.) and the introduction of the Resource Super Profits Tax.(ref:name="wsj")

The claim that Gillard was "distancing herself" from these problematic policies isn't supported by the Wall St Journal Article used as a source, which doesn't mention any of them other than the mining tax and even then doesn't say anything about Gillard's attitude towards the tax. The statement that she was moving away from the internet filter is referenced to an 18 June article which states that the Greens are claiming this to be the case while the Government (headed by Rudd at the time) wasn't commenting on the matter. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The date she assumed office is quite wrong. I have no idea who would think that she assumed office on June 24. She assumed office when Kevin Rudd stepped down and she was sworn in as the new Prime Minister. This was on June 25. NOT June 24. Since the article is protected I can't fix this obvious error. This is one of the clear problems with Wikipeia and continues to be a key reason why Wikipedia will never be taken as a serious or reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.255.118 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

She was sworn in on Thursday afternoon (24 June). Bidgee (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd said in his press conference on 24 June that he was PM until 12pm. Gillard was sworn in shortly after 12pm. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Political views section?

While certain aspects of her political views could be gleamed from the entry for her party, I think once someone rises to this high a level in government their personal politics and decisions should be on their page, and in its own section. Similar to how Barack Obama's page is constructed or Michael Atkinson. I am, however, unfamiliar with Australian politics beyond a few names and have no idea where to begin researching. Can we at least agree that a "Political Views" section is necessary in the near future? Scryer_360 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, this would be particularly useful for readers without a detailed knowledge of Australian political workings. Donama (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. After all, if her party affiliation was all that one needed to know, then how would one account for her staging of the coup against Rudd? HuskyHuskie (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an interested Kiwi living in the UK, all I've heard is that she was close to Rudd, and she's within the ALP's left-wing. More detail from more informed editors would certainly be good. TFOWR 08:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a left- and right-wing in mainstream politics any more, anywhere in representative democracy. It would be easy to give the wrong impression to readers who have little familiarity with Australian politics. Sure, there are nuances of the progressive, the nostalgic (white picket fences), the labour- or business-oriented, but everything hangs around the centre nowadays. Ms Gillard is no exception. It would be less misleading to cast her origins in progressive or small-el-liberal or even left-leaning student politics, but the faction names of left and right in the modern ALP are just old labels that no one can bear to change. Caution is required in the wording, and since so little is known about how she will forge policy in the top job, WP would be best not to jump the gun; we'd look hasty, even foolish, in a year's time. I'd say it would be prudent to talk more explicitly about policy when her election platform is announced. Can't be long now. Tony (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, but at the moment I'm going on what the BBC tell me - and I tend to agree with you that label such as "left wing of the party" are somewhat meaningless. What little I've heard in the UK has been contradictory (close to Rudd, so far away from Rudd she had to oust him) so some detail would improve that ;-) At the moment all the article tells me is "Gillard is a member of the Left faction of the Labor party" - which tells me very little. I disagree about jumping the gun: if it's citable now it's citable now, if things change we cite a new source to reflect the change. TFOWR 09:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the BBC site has taken wording from this page, too. If the sources are in a dither, contradicting one another, it is more important that WP editors make NPOV sense of the issue, and especially avoid joining bandwagons. That is why readers look to us. Tony (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if 'political position' sections really work for articles on most Australian politicians. Due to the very rigid party discipline in the ALP and the Coalition parties it's very rare for MPs to publicly express views which differ from the party's policies. This is rarer still for MPs like Gillard who've been members of the shadow or government cabinets for most of their political careers, as under Australian political conventions they are required to publicly support all decisions made by the cabinet and must resign if they want to express different views. Similarly, Gillard's 'political positions' as PM are going to be government policy. Gillard has had some things to say over the years on issues such as workers rights, the role of women in politics, etc, but since she became a shadow minister she's been entirely unable to dissent from federal ALP policy, even if she had ever wanted to. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's very true Nick-D. And let's put into words at least here in Conversation another part of the real problem. Gillard has been part of the ALP's faction known for much of its life as the Socialist Left. In many parts of the political globe, that word Socialist is seen as worse than terrorist. It seems to be used in the USA against anyone left of Genghis Kahn as the ultimate pejorative, but it's not for most Australians. It's just another political label. The ALP's factions' names do matter, but they are just as much groupings of friends and traditions, and pathways to higher goals. And Australia's political language IS different. It spells Labor oddly. The Liberals are conservative, and often openly not liberal. Without a detailed explanation of this state of Australia's political language, much more than I have given here, just naming her faction won't help anyone understand her real political position. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. As her choice of factions is probably the best indication of her political views, it would be worth explaining what it actually stands for these days. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Step-children?

Tim Mathieson has 3 kids from his previous relationship. Would it be correct to say that Gillard therefore has 3 step-children, or does that require them to be married and not just partners? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If they're not married, then (by definition) the children are not her step-children.(Huey45 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC))

I guess it depends on which definition you're using. Stepfamily says: "The traditional and strictest definition of a “stepfamily” is a married couple where one or both members of the couple have pre-existing children who live with them.[2] More recently, the definition is often expanded to include all cohabiting couples, whether married or not." -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

True, the couple would have to marry for Mathieson's children to formally become Gillard's step-children. But in one of the many references I've seen over the past couple of daysGillard stated that, since the "kids" were already adults when she met him, there's no way she could see them as step-children. I think they're just going to remain "Tim's children" in all sensible sources. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. It comes down to whether she regards them as her stepchildren or not, and she doesn't. Tks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, none of Mathieson's children have ever lived with Gillard and Mathieson, so there has never been a step-mother - step-children type relationship. Jim Michael (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but whether they live together or separately would not be the determiner of whether the formal step-relationship exists. Had Gillard and Mathieson married, there would be no question that his children are her stepchildren, no matter where they live or how old they are. But they haven't married, and apparently nobody in the family considers that a step-relationship exists. End of story as far as we're concerned. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that all 3 of them are 18 or over means they're unlikely to ever be described as her step children, regardless of whether or not they marry. Not that grown adults aren't called step children in other circumstances, but normally there's been a period where the 'step children' were actually children and the step parent was present. Donama (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Socialist left faction of the Australian Labor Party

imho, it should be mentioned that she is a member of the socialist left faction, and in turn a member of the "soft" left wing of that faction, of the Labour party. At the very least, they should be a link to the socialist left Wikipedia page.--130.218.71.43 (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that states that to be the case, then add it to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Some more detail on the faction thing is now in the Political Positions section of the article, although it must still be quite confusing to people not familiar with ALP machinations. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm following along OK (good job!), but I'm reasonably familiar with Labour parties in the UK and NZ. An article on the Socialist left faction would help, similar to this UK Labour faction, but I honestly have no idea how big/important/significant/notable the faction is. For non-US readers I'd imagine "Socialist left faction" is fairly clear; for US readers it might need an explanation of some sort. TFOWR 11:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Left (Australia). Timeshift (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

...then my concerns are met ;-) Thanks, and I've linked to Socialist Left in the article. TFOWR 12:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheism?

should we mention she is an atheist http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939879.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.173.173 (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a good source; however, it doesn't say she's an atheist (we'd have to interpret the article to arrive at that conclusion). We'd need a better source for the atheism claim, or we could just quote from this article, e.g. "she does not believe in God". That neatly avoids the whole agnostic/atheist issue, of interpreting whether she actively believes that God does not exist (atheist) vs. merely doesn't believe in God (agnostic). TFOWR 09:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to not just say the simple "atheist" or "does not believe in god" but to put it in context. Something I've seen in a couple of articles today goes like this...

(This is from The Age)

She explained she was raised in the Baptist tradition - even winning prizes for remembering Bible verses - but had since formed different views.

"I'm not going to pretend a faith I don't feel," she said.

"For people of faith I think the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."''

She is making the point that she is being honest about her position, perhaps in contrast to some others who might pretend to have faith when they don't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't argue with that ;-) So long as we don't try and interpret the sources I'll be happy. TFOWR 10:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of belief in god(s)=atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.149.143 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Two things.... Firstly, have a look at Atheism, and at its Talk page, and see the difficulty of defining it. Look also at Agnostic. See how certain you feel about it all then. Secondly this is the biography of a living person. WP:BLP tells us to be very careful about what we say. Otherwise people tend to sue. The safest thig is to simply quote what a person actually says about themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What part of stating a non-belief in god makes it unclear that she may not be atheist? There can only be one interpretation of what she said. Clearly by explicitly stating that she doesn't believe in god she is claiming to be an atheist and I believe the article and infobox should both state that. These pedantic semantics based on claims of original research for biographical articles are annoying. Be cautious - sure, but don't be ultra-paranoid. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just avoid the label and leave it at what Gillard herself said? If that conclusion is so obvious to you, you will be confident that others will also reach it. (I don't think you looked at either of the articles I suggested, did you?) BTW - the triple negative in your first sentence had me thinking for a while. HiLo48 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Because a non-belief in God is not the same as Atheism. I'm agnostic: I don't believe in God. I have no idea whether God exists. Atheists have a clear idea: God doesn't exist. All Gillard's said is that she doesn't believe in God. That's all the article can say. I wouldn't be happy trying to label her "agnostic", and that would be far more accurate. TFOWR 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

While I think the sources support her being an atheist, the current wording of 'non religious' is fine. I would strongly object to her religion being set to atheism in the infobox though, as atheism isn't a religion. Just as abstinence isn't a sex position. Donama (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What HiLo and TFOWR are saying is exactly right. I would suggest you read both those articles so that you can understand the difference, Shiftchange. (Huey45 (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

The difference is that agnosticism is a position on knowledge, atheism is a position on belief. Knowledge vs. Belief. Pretty clear. If you don't believe in any gods, then you are, by definition, an atheist. But, apparently "atheist" is a bad word, so it probably shouldn't be used in the article unless Gillard specifically uses it to describe herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.149.143 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely right. This being the biography of a living person requires that we use the words she herself has used wherever possible. (See WP:BLP }And yes, to some here it's obvious that atheist IS a bad word. As followers of their god they want to condem those with different beliefs, quite the opposite of Gillard's position. I have no problems with people declaring themselves to be atheists. I've explored the concept myself. But I'm nto sure. So for myself I stick with agnostic. For Gillard and myself. But I don't really matter. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully support not adding the religion = atheist tag to the infobox. The matter is adequately dealt with elsewhere in the article. There is however another reason and that is that atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of a religion. This has come up on other articles such as Greg Combet. Even if she stated she was an atheist, which she has not, we should not say that is her religion. She has no religion. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

She is one. I added this source where she says she does not believe in God. Its also here about 8 minutes into the radio clip. The infoboxes on David Miliband and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have Atheism or none and I swear Nick Cleggs used to have it. I think None (atheism) is acceptable and correct and very notable. She might be the first leader of a major country to public express no religious beliefs.Metallurgist (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

She has not referred to herself as an "atheist". To do so constitutes original research. Anyway, it's not a religion so has no place in a religion infobox field. WWGB (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Short memories. Bob Hawke was an atheist. (Probably still is.) Two more points... "No religion" is not the same as atheism. And Atheism is NOT a religion. (I think I've already said that.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Metallurgist, there's no dispute that she's an atheist. After reading your point about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali and David Miliband articles, I've been bold and taken the religion out of those infoboxes too. It's ludicrous to describe atheism as a religion. Both these articles cover the fact that the subject is an atheist inline also. This suggests to me that infobox slots for religion and other similar detail should be used only very carefully. Donama (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, both of those individuals have specifically stated that they're atheists. Otherwise, the description of atheism being a religion does seem odd. I'd accept that it is a belief, as opposed to the denial of one, that's not the same thing. - Bilby (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Bob Hawke isn't an atheist; he called himself "agnostic" in an interview with Andrew Denton on Enough Rope in the last few years. As to the suggestion that Julia Gillard's info box should say "Religion: None" just because three obscure articles about other politicians do, that's not a particularly good reason and it goes against a Wikipedia policy, although I can't remember how to get to the relevant page.(Huey45 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Specifically on whether it should be in infobox

Is Atheism a religion?? I didn't think it was, I haven't seen a church or building where people worhship Atheism. I believe it should be in her article but I don't think it should be under RELIGION in her tab box (or whatever it is called). —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanberraBulldog (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree Canberra Bulldog, but in various comparable articles (David Miliband, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Chloe Smith) the statement "religion: none (Atheist)" has been the consensus those editors agreed on. This is going back on what I said before, but I'm willing to comply with what appears to be an international consensus (not that I could find it in black and white yet). Donama (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agnosticism

Is that really a word? I like it if it is. :) Anyway, in the hope of clearing this up I've done some research. I've found no instances where she has described herself as an atheist so far. However, she does state that she's an agnostic. In "Standing tall to face" (2 October 2007) Leader p8, she states in response to "Are you religious" that:

"I was brought up Baptist but now I'm agnostic".

A couple of years earlier, in the Sunday Mail there's

"She is agnostic but believes strongly in Judaeo-Christian values." (Wright, Lincoln. "Why I'm ready to lead nation" (23 January 2005) Sunday Mail Adelaide, p2.)

That claim is repeated by the same author in the Sunday Herald Sun:

"In an exclusive interview with the Sunday Herald Sun, Ms Gillard, who is the Member for Lalor, in Melbourne's west, said she was single and did not plan to have children. She describes herself as an agnostic, but believes strongly in Judeo-Christian values." ("Female, single, no kids But it's no obstacle, says Julia", 3 January 2005, p2).

That's pretty much the same source as the second, though. It all seems a bit of a non-issue to be edit warring over to me, but that seems to be Gillard's take on things.

As an aside, it seems that Curtin was also agnostic, as, it is argued, was Holt. And possibly Whitlam. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot support an alignment of convenience by placing Agnostic against "Religion" in the infobox. If the infobox was changed to "Religious belief" (not gonna happen) perhaps I might be swayed. Agnostic(ism) never was, never will be a "religion". (As an aside, I can't believe the amount of time expended here and on tabloid TV about this non-issue. It's as if the ALP had elected the devil as PM.) WWGB (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. My point is just that "atheist" is clearly not what she describes herself as. While it is debatable in some circles whether or not atheism can be counted as a religious belief, there's no way I can imagine "agnostic" being counted as one. btw, I figure that she can't be the devil, on the grounds that the devil must believe in God. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The affirmation thing again

The paragraph where it's tagged on the end is now enhanced to better reflect what she said about religion. The affirmation sentence seems to be a bit odd there. I know what it means. Many editors here will. But I'll bet a lot of readers will not understand the significance of the sentence. All it says to me is that she took an action consistent with her position as described in the earlier part of the paragraph. Given that many will not know why the sentence is there, and it says nothing different, well, why is it there? HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Earlier a constrast was made between affirmation and oath but some editors didn't like it so just stuck to the facts. Probably we should re-add something like "she made an affirmation instead of the oath (typically taken by religious leaders) when she was sworn in as prime minister in 2010". Donama (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The oath is also taken by politicians who want to maintain a conservative image and fool believers int thinking that they too believe. To me, Gillard has simply done what ethically goes with her position of "no religion". What should really be noteworthy is the more hypocritical swearing of the oath by those who really don't mean it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Donama, it's a good idea to suggest mentioning that the oath is the alternative, although when you say "religious leaders", a lot of people would think of someone like a bishop or a cardinal rather than a leader who happens to be religious. How about: "she made an affirmation instead of the traditional oath when she was sworn in as prime minister in 2010" (Huey45 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

That would need to be put in context. She is certainly not the first politician to make an affirmation. She may be the first PM. I don't know. Do you? Would it be fair to expalin the differences? Most readers will neither know nor care. Apparently you do. Could you explain it? And say why it is significant? HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just going off what someone else said in the earlier discussion, but it appears that an oath is where she swears to God that she'll do a good job and with an affirmation, she doesn't. I was interested because an oath is a stronger commitment.(Huey45 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Only for someone who believes in God. If they don't, and I'm sure that many who made the oath in the past and will in the future don't, it's pure hypocrisy and, in fact, no commitment at all. . HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The bit on the affirmation is getting better, but still gives me the impression that it's there because some religious folk want to be able to point and say "Look. She's not a Christian! EVIL...." I saw a claim by another editor in the past few days that a majority of the current crew made affirmations. Can't find a source though. Since we are explaining the affirmation, I would also like to see it explained how common or how rare such a thing is. Of course, if it's relatively common, it probably shouldn't even be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suppose that's true. There are some apparently some states in America where if you want to make an affirmation instead of take an oath you have to provide a reason. From an international perspective I suppose it therefore is a big deal, even if loads of Australians choose it. Still, I do see the sense in removing it altogether now there are a lot of references to detail of her religion or lack of. I would be happy to remove it altogether if that's the consensus. Only two of you commenting in this discussion though... Any others? Donama (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Found this from an Age article on the swearing in of the Rudd ministry - "About half the ministry, including Treasurer Wayne Swan, Senate leader Chris Evans, Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, opted for affirmations." It's here-> [11]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice one there. Tend to agree it makes it look trivial. Okay, to be removed. Will just wait a bit in case. Donama (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Donama's unilateral editing

There's some strong debate here. Donama has just pushed some strong positions, for which there is no consensus, into the article. TIme for a chat Mr Donama. Please stop it, and discuss first.

Firstly, the material I added on Gillard's religious positon was not waffly. It precisely reflected her position as she explained it. It's a little more complex than just a non-belief. An edit summary of "waffly", on a sensitive topic, is NOT enough. Give your thoughts here. And listen to others. HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the edit summary was inadequate. Also, I'm very happy to listen to others. And I didn't mean to personally attack by labelling the newer wording as waffly. (Also I'm not a Mr). I'm advocating a direct statement based on secondary sources about her beliefs or lack thereof. I'm not sure we need to see "when asked about x y said z". Why not "y said z" or if a direct quote is not available "y is/believes/does z". So my restoration of the paragraph was purely for reasons of readability and succinctness. I'm okay will not restoring it if others disagree with me. Donama (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed Donama was female. As a rule of thumb, any name that ends in "a" is female. Anyway, back to the more important issue, I thought the wording as it was (for most of) yesterday was good; it didn't try to interpret any extra information from her words and showed everything as she said it. I thought it was agreed that there would be no mention in the infobox, since it's a bit silly making a big deal about the religion of someone who said they don't really think about it in the first place. (Huey45 (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

...and who are David Miliband, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Chloe Smith? They're all obscure nobodies, so their Wikipedia articles are probably written badly by editors who are unfamiliar with the rules. Using them as templates for an article with thousands of readers per day is not a particularly sensible idea. (Huey45 (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

If believers were in the dark about Gillard's religious convictions, they needed only to tune in to the ABC's Jon Faine program yesterday.

It can't be more simply put:

"FAINE: Do you believe in God?

PM: No, I don't Jon, I'm not a religious person.

Amazingly, the radio station was not struck by lightning." [12] --Cablehorn (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Donama - apologies about the gender misdirection. I hope no offence was taken. I'm not used to all these women in high places! My comment to all those who think that it's so easy to say that someone who says they don't believe is an atheist is, please go look at the article on Atheist. Editors there are constantly arguing over the definition. They would appreciate the clarity you feel you can bring to the discussion. Do check out Agontic too. And as I've said many times before, we are dealing with the biography of a living person here. Wikipedia rules are very strict. Until Gillard says that she is atheist, or agnostic, it's not our job to draw conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the sub-section about Agnosticism above. It seems that Gillard HAS declared herself to be agnostic. So we can use that term. But NOT beside the word Religion, because it isn't! Just because someone in a country more obsessed with religion than Australia put that category in the infobox, it doesn't mean we have to use it. Its non-use tells a story anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• If there's a source for "agnostic" (which I gather there is) "agnostic" is fine. "Atheist" is not - it's based an editor's interpretation of sources which do not use the word "atheist". It's also patently wrong: if the article's subject describes herself as "agnostic" and reliable sources quote her, we need to use the same description. This article is a WP:BLP - we can not play fast-and-loose with our descriptions of living people. TFOWR 09:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotes are the best way to resolve any disputes. Technically, "theist" means "believer in god" and the prefixx "a" means "not" so "atheist" is just "non-believer in god. But it's better just to quote her directly. Let me know what you all think of my edits.Gregcaletta (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy. Technically, you're correct, but the common meanings have shifted over time (like "vegetarian" once meaning what we would now call "vegan", or "hacker" shifting to become what once was "cracker"). But we neatly side-step that by using direct quotes. TFOWR 10:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, there is no need to label her as this or that. Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I mucked up the quote but Cablehorn fixed it up. Looks good now. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good source for her background, life: Radio National interview of Gillard 2004

Transcript of an ABC Radio National interview of Gillard in 2004, recently repeated on her accession to the PMship. Also available in audio for a few weeks. I think this might contain valuable information to beef up the horribly inadequate Personal life section. Whether the link should be included in "External links" is another matter. Tony (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead edits

Just a heads up - i've kept the firsts (woman/unmarried) in the lead but as being born overseas is not actually a first, I've moved it in to the body. Also, the lead says Gillard became leader at a leadership election... no votes were cast as Gillard ended up being the only candidate, therefore being in the lead it's significance is overstated, i've also moved it in to the body. Also, I removed her being acting PM from the lead, in retrospect it won't be/isn't noteable enough... it's already in the body. I think the lead is much more succinct and readable now. Timeshift (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)