Talk:Julia Gillard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Infobox and religion

I refer to a number of attempts to categorise Ms Gillard in this respect. It is one of the key disadvantages of infoboxes that they encourage the slotting of people into preconceived categories. I agree entirely with the revert edit-summary: atheism is not a religion. That is, she has no allegiance at all to the supernatural industry. She is free to be thus, and should not be cast in terms of a religion just because the infobox has a field to that effect. It was created by Americans, who virtually demand religious affiliation by their politicians—all that happens is a lot of public lying. Tony (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Gillard actually referred to that situation in some text I earlier added to the article, but which was later removed on the basis of being too wordy. It said "...she thinks that for people of faith, the greatest compliment she could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about hers." It was well sourced. I would like to see it back in the article, but was not going top engage in an edit war over it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it was an important statement. Tony (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth putting it in wikiquotes for the "not to engage in some pretence about hers" bit. Donama (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that last suggestion. Wikiquotes? Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a specific multi-language wiki for quotations and is a Wikimedia project just like Wikipedia. For example see wikiquote:Kevin Rudd and note that wikiquote:Julia Gillard does not yet exist. Donama (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks. Interesting stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reference that says she is an atheist, altho perhaps there is one and perhaps she is. Atheism is indeed a philosophical position: the belief that God or the supernatural do not exist. Asserting that God does exist or does not exist are equally beliefs - see Anthony_Kenny#Philosophy - the President of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. Atheism is present in numerous world religions, such as Jainism and some forms of Buddhism and religious Humanism. However, beliefs about God's existence alone don't form a religion.

From what I've seen, her position until further information is known would have to be categorised (and I know single categories are fairly silly for something this complex) as agnosticism - the belief that the existence of God or the supernatural cannot be known (even if one has faith or lack of faith that they do, such as Kierkegaard's absurdism dilemma). Believing that God and the supernatural don't exist is a philosophical position and all philosophical positions translate to a person's approach to life and decisions, so it is relevant for the voting public to know. For now, "none" or "agnosticism" is a suitable enough category.Utopial (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people seem to have looked for and NOT found any quote from Gillard saying that she is an atheist. I'm not sure that she has even personally used the word agnostic. So really, for us to use a single word to describe her position, when she has used several, is a form of synthesis, something discouraged here. I also have the view that atheism does not have to be described in negative terms (eg. belief that god does NOT exist). It can be simply the expectation/assumption that everything either already has or will have a rational explanation. One does not have to invoke a god to define an atheist. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that it's better not to categorise her as something that she hasn't explicitly categorised herself as. I wouldn't call categorising it 'synthesis' (that's merging sources), rather, it's original research.

However the definition is phrased, atheism is a belief. Anything based on assumptions is a belief. Atheism makes the assumption of naturalism, i.e. a committed belief in naturalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.199.241 (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see your perspective that it is a belief, but it's not an unprovable belief in a mystery friend. It's a belief for which the proven supporting evidence is constantly growing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No probabilities can be assigned to either belief, so stating that the supporting evidence is growing isnt correct. Assigning probabilities requires complete knowledge, which no one has. I assume the conception of 'God' you are referring to is the anthropomorphistic one or the unmoved mover where the difference is that deists believe that the universe was created out of something rather than out of nothing - deists having mystery friends, atheists thinking objects pop out of thin air are useless insults. Wittgenstein and others consider the concept of 'God' differently to how you do, which is good reading material to try to gain an understanding of deism, which should be encouraged if u ever make references to it. Things are never as simple as they appear - understanding is more important than judgement.Utopial (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The repeated references to "God" in this discussion are puzzling to an atheist such as myself. Atheists disbelieve in all deities equally. We disbelieve in the Hindu elephant boy-deity Ganesh, the Mesoamerican deity Quetzalcoatl, the Muslim/Jewish/Christian monotheistic deity, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster all quite equally. We do not single out one particular deity for our disbelief, as you characters seem to be doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.249.182 (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Australian government, Atheism is a religion. Sbrianhicks (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In what context? Where is the evidence? HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gillard never said she didn't know if God exists but that she didn't believe in God's existence. Just because Gillard never claims to be an atheist doesn't mean she isn't one. Has Gillard claimed to be an agnostic? The atheist tag is now being used by religious conservatives and these reports are showing up in recent media articles. Also the infobox line for religion doesn't have to specifically describe a particular religion. Atheism would be fine for that field because it only has a religious context. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Shiftchange, in that she is clearly an atheist. But since Atheism isn't a religion it doesn't really belong there in the religion slot unqualified. I have added (atheist) to the religion slot in infobox in line with David Miliband and other similar articles. The long discussion and consensus-making that the editors of that article had before putting that in the infobox religion slot is a compelling reason to do it here too. Donama (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How about just inserting an inline note with her direct quote? I think it is best not to use labels.  Davtra  ^(talk) 04:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's a label, but it's a useful one and surprisingly specific. It's only because there's odium associated with the word that we're tentative about using it. From a truly neutral perspective these considerations should not matter so long as it's true and verified by good quality references, which it is. Donama (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why the compulsion to feed this infobox field. It was created by someone else, probably in another country, where religion is significant to office. It isn't here. Gillard has other blank fields in her infobox, such as nickname and date of death. Why? Because they do not exist. For her, religion does not exist either. So we should leave it blank, not just apply terms that have never passed her lips and which just seem "convenient" to make some kind of point. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WWGB, Julia Gillard doesn't seem to have ever described hereself as an atheist, but she has said that she's an agnostic. Thus if we were to go with a label, agnostic seems like the best bet. However, leaving the label out or just saying "none" seems to best describe the quotes she has made in recent months. - Bilby (talk) 04:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were struggling to find a Gillard quote about her agnosticism. Others have described her that way, but has she? If so, I'd be more likely to accept an infobox entry. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

She said "I don't believe in God" which across the English-speaking world means atheist, not agnostic or semi-religious. It's not any interpretation on my part at all, just literally what's she's indicated. Donama (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Donama, there IS odium associated with the word atheist, particularly among obsessive, fundamentalist Christians. They want the word there to reinforce their brainwashed view that she is evil. We should not feed that obsession. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the sources, it's a bit iffy, so I've always prefered "none" to agnostic. However, in The Leader in 2007 she was directly quoted as saying she was agnostic, with "I was brought up Baptist but now I'm agnostic". Earlier in an interview in 2005 for a number of papers she was indirectly quoted in the Sunday Herald Sun with "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." (The "exclusive" is a bit iffy, so the same descripition is included in a couple of other papers). More recently, in July Christopher Pyne stated that Gillard is "apparently describing herself as an agnostic", and that can be sourced to The Courier Mail. However, that's certainly not ideal - I'm not really inclined to go with Pyne either way, and I'd prefer something direct from Gillard. :) I couldn't find anything where she said that she was an atheist, but I should probably see if anything has emerged recently. - Bilby (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no point "going with" agnostic or atheist for the Religion entry. Neither is a religion. Either use "None", or more preferably, just don't use that field. As already noted, the religion of elected people is less of an issue in Australia than almost anywhere else in the world. Let's not be driven by a crappy Infobox structure. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you all trying to get this into Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars or what? --Surturz (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No just trying to get the article to convey important and accurate information about the person. Last night on ABC's Q&A she was called a self-described atheist to her face and she made no indication that this was false nor attempted to correct this description. It is obviously true that she is an atheist and this is related to an absence of a faith in religion and that this should be mentioned in the infobox religion field as it is significant. I have no idea why anyone would object to this. Whether some group has a problem with this term is completely incidental as is the perceived important of someone's faith in Australia or whether other infobox fields are empty too. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

She may well be an atheist, as I am, but atheism is still not a religion, so "none" is the best answer to the question "religion?". --Bduke (Discussion) 01:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that she did not deny it is not the same as her using the term for herself. Gillard is clearly avoiding the use of that term for herself, and until she unequivocally describes herself as an atheist, we should take her at her word and leave it as "Religion: none".  -- Lear's Fool 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with that, Bduke, but in deference to helping out the international spectrum of reader why it is not okay to follow the convention used in other politician articles and follow None with (Atheist) which is of course another way of saying 'no religion'. For examples of other politician articles that follow the convention see:

* David Miliband (UK Labor, toute as future PM)

* Chloe Smith (UK Conservative whip)

* Ayaan Hirsi Ali (former Dutch VVD party parliamentarian)

* Pete Stark (Californian member of USA house of reps)

although I admit there's little consistency on the matter. Loads of atheists simply have the word 'Atheist' in the religion slot, which I think is worse. Donama (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if she says she is an Atheist is still doesn't belong in the religion box as it isn't a religion.CanberraBulldog (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Miliband, for example, said "I'm an atheist. I say that. I'm not a person of faith myself." Gillard has made no similar declaration of atheism. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is a self-declaration using the word 'atheist' a requirement for it to be a fact? Donama (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Let's keep it simple. If she labels herself as an atheist, it can go into the Religion field. If not, don't add it.  Davtra  ^(talk) 02:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the insistence on A SLOT at all that I find ideological and NPOV. Tony (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Let’s recapitulate. The original argument is not to add atheism into the religion slot because atheism isn’t a religion. The next argument is that Gillard has never used that term and it shouldn’t be used in the article. My comment was addressing the latter. It has already been a month and editors are still arguing whether to add atheism into the slot or use the term. I don’t think an agreement will be made so best to leave the slot as it is (or remove it).  Davtra  ^(talk) 05:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I say bin it, and bin the argument with it. Tony (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I say delete the Religion tag tooCanberraBulldog (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Would be quite happy to remove it altogether. Will need patrolling to keep it out though I'm afraid. Donama (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, Donama. Tony (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bin it. Scrap it. Delete it. Forever. And don't worry, I'll be patrolling! HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly care, but I reckon if there's coverage of her religious status in the article, then it should warrant a quick mention in the infobox. The fact that she is not religious is an interesting piece of information that has (rightly or wrongly) played it's part in the public dialogue regarding her Prime Ministership. Still, I'm not hugely bothered either way.  -- Lear's Fool 12:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, remove the religion component of JG's infobox. Timeshift (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

She has said in interviews, point blank, "I don't believe in God". That makes her, ipso facto, an atheist, by definition. Kwertii (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

...or an agnostic, Pantheist, Polytheist... Basically she doesn't believe in "God". She may or may not believe in a god or gods or have no opinion. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist \A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god:

cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. [1913 Webster]

Pantheists and polytheists do believe in God, they just have a rather different idea of what "God" is (hence the "theist" in the word. One who says "I don't believe in God" has met the dictionary definition of an "atheist" as quoted above.. Kwertii (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Another cite: "HOST: Do you believe in God? GILLARD: No, I don't, John." [1] That seems crystal clear to me. She didn't say "I believe God is everything and everywhere," thus she is not a pantheist. She didn't say "I believe in many gods," thus she is not a polytheist. She didn't say "I don't know if there is a God," thus, she is not an agnostic. She didn't say "I have no opinion." She said, directly, that she does not believe in God. Therefore she is an atheist, by definition. Kwertii (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you Kwertii. Other editors overruled though, on the basis that the term "atheist" is odious and/or presumptious and that "not religious" is more neutral and suited to the modern day, especially in the context of Australian culture, which was the context of Gillard's statement that she doesn't believe in God. Doesn't alter the fact that she is an atheist of course, but I'm happy to use the term "not religious" in the article. Donama (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Been thinking about this a lot. There is no doubt that the word atheist has already been used about Gillard in a condemning way by some, and they would want it in the article to show how nasty she is. That makes it a POV word. However, now that she is properly in the job, I think it will depend a lot on how she goes. If she is successful, the fact that she is a non-believer may become a positive addition, in the sense that fans of atheism may want to say "Look, our popular PM is an atheist." That happened a bit with Bob Hawke. Unfortunately, that's still a POV usage. Atheist is a tricky word. Shortcuts like this often are. That's why I'm totally comfortable for the article to contain quite lengthy transcripts of what she has said herself about her religious position, but I find it problematic when it is summarised to a one-word label, assigned by others, in the infobox. It's not a simple issue. One word is not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

sydney morning herald quotes ABC interview in which JG says she doesn't believe in God: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pm-tells-it-as-she-sees-it-on-the-god-issue-20100629-zjad.html assuming that this is accurate (not a given,granted) that answers the question, yes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 12:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What question? HiLo48 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Whitelaughter, we were aware of these statements by Gillard before this discussion was started. Donama (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I don't want to add anything to this discussion topic, but let interested editors know about the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Atheist categories which was stimulated by UK Labor leader Ed Miliband (possible future British PM) stating he doesn't believe in God in the same way Julia stated it. Donama (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking stock of this article

So, colleagues, where are we at in terms of the sudden need to upgrade this article? If users might identify any remaining weaknesses, it would be most helpful for knowing where to allocate our editorial resources. Tony (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Nye Bevan remains one of her political heroes" is jammed in the "Early life" section, and is not mentioned elsewhere. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarise the sections below. One or two more photos would be nice. A little more background and detail in the Opposition member and Deputy PM sections could probably be found as there are too many short paragraphs. That is what I would do to improve this article. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We might want a more current, nicer photo of our prime minister. Julia Gillard is quite the beautiful lady. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinophile21992 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a free image, be our guest. But they are extremely hard to find. Timeshift (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a cohort of editors obsessed with Julia's lack of religion. Many times in the first few days of her prime ministership, and now probably every couple of days, someone adds something about it to the article, typically describing her as an atheist, although she has never called herself one. I'm wondering if it's possible or practical to add comments to appropriate parts of the article pointing out to potential editors that her religious status is settled, is not an issue, and is not to be altered, unless new evidence arises. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add an editorial note to this effect now. Tony (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice move. That should help. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-added election links

"Labor came to power at the 2007 federal election, Gillard has indicated that the next federal election will be held by the end of the year." - I think it's important to have this in the lead. Timeshift (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Election speculation in the lead

I'm not comfortable with it being there.

It's based entirely on a statement by a politician, said no doubt with political gain in mind, and carrying no guarantee of it being true, ESPECIALLY since i came from a politician. I will even agree that it seems likely at the moment, but that too is speculation, not something Wikipedia should be dabbling in.

The same evidence has been used to change the name of Australian federal election, 2010, adding the 2010, when legally the election can be held any time until April next year.

All of this is simply showing an obsession with the election from some editors, which really is a POV position. This article is about Gillard, not the next election. Once it has been called, a simple entry to that effect will suffice in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I fail to see the issue. This could be the one statement by a politician that actually matters - the PM saying the election will be held this year which means she will go to the GG to disolve parliament this year. She has said the election will be held in 2010, she's the one who gets to choose. The wording I believe is very neutral. She's PM, the election is coming, the 2010 election should have a link in the lead. I'm not sure how anyone could argue otherwise. There is no "obsession" with elections, but elections do actually decide which party forms government and who becomes PM, and she controls when the election will be held. It's not rocket science - nor POV. I would have thought it basic info to indicate when the next election for an incumbent PM is? Timeshift (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. POV is probably the wrong expression. It's more a matter of too much weight on one matter, and an absolute belief by you in what a politician has said. You say "... she will go to the GG to disolve parliament this year", but the only "concrete" evidence for that is a politician's word. That is no guarantee at all. It is speculation. I'm 100% certain that Wikipedia policy would not support accepting a politician's word on when something will happen in the future. Why not simply reflect what definitely IS the truth - that the election must happen by April next year? HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I fail to see the issue if everyone knows that the person responsible for choosing the date has given everyone a timeframe...? If it's not going to be held in 2011 then why give readers an impression it may? Timeshift (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But it still CAN be held in 2011. Gillard is under no formal obligation to keep her word. You are simply using her word to support your speculation that it will occur in 2010. There is really little point in doing that. Let's just stick to facts. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

And it says precicesly that in the opening of the next election article (now renamed 2010 not by my doing). But as far as Gillard is concerned, the next election is in 2010. Can't we just avoid trivialities? Timeshift (talk) 08:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

←(e.c.)She has announced it will be this year, and it would be political suicide for her to break that. Under the circumstances, I think it's OK to link to the article on the 2010 election: it is, for all purposes, a "fact". Tony (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The "political suicide" bit may be true, but again, it's speculation. Not Wikipedia's job. Oh well, I've said my piece. I'll await others' thoughts and see who else trusts politicians more than I do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not about trust or lack thereof. It's about our policy of not speculating. I agree that until the election is actually called, then technically we're speculating it will be held this year. I wasn't all that happy about the next election article being changed prematurely - or what I considered prematurely - but nobody seemed interested in discussing my objections, so I had to just shut up and move on. Since then, the political caravan has moved on, and we now have the GG changing her plans to be available should Gillard wish to pay her a visit in the next few days. In the light of these developments, it would be taking purism to a new extreme to demand we not speculate about the election being held in 2010. So let's not do that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It is significant & important, but being in the lead paras of an article about "Julia Gillard" is my concern.

BTW - It's a bad sentence. ... "Labor came to power at the 2007 federal election, Gillard has indicated that the next federal election will be held by the end of 2010." Cablehorn (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Comma splice now fixed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift - I note you have now had to re-add the bit in the lead about the election several times. Does this not suggest to you that there may not be consensus on this matter? Note that re-presenting your arguments on the matter is NOT a response to this comment of mine. MY point is that we obviously don't have consensus. I would suggest that there never has been. How determined are you to keeping working against consensus? HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48, Cablehorn and JackofOz - it's important to have the next federal election in this article but not in the lead. This article is about Julia Gillard and not the next election. Do we put in Tony Abbott's bio that is next bike ride will be held this year? NO! I believe it should be in the article somewhere like in her PM section or links but not in the main lead - it just doesn't fit. The main lead is about Gillard and then it suddenly ends with the next election - which can be held anytime until April 2011 - wouldn't be the first and the last time a politician misleads the public.

Seeing we can't agree - should we not vote where it foes or something like that? CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)CanberraBulldog

It's obvious you aren't genuine if you're comparing bike riding to an election. Timeshift (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out how silly it is to have speculation about something that may take 9 months to happen. I didn't think speculation was meant to be in a Wikipedia article - I thought it had to be fact, past tense or current tense, not future tense?!?! CanberraBulldog (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just checked the articles for several other elected world leaders. Not a mention of the next election in any of them. We have a Gillard election obsessed editor in action here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I have re-written the lead: I didn't feel like the old one fully summarised the contents of the article. I think this one does it better, but the prose is pretty clunky and could probably do with a copy-edit. Thoughts?  -- Lear's Fool 04:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've YET AGAIN re-added the next election link per discussion above. Eventually dissidents will just accept they will not get their way on this one :) Timeshift (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to miss that bit. I've added the reference from before, hope that's satisfactory!  -- Lear's Fool 04:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou! By the way, congrats to Gillard on being Australia's first deputy PM! Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How embarrassing...  -- Lear's Fool 04:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Weren't there deputy PM's before Gillard? She can't have been the first! 220.253.248.195 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a typo which has long since been corrected. Timeshift (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on elections

Here. Also a note there that the 2010 election link will be re-added to the lead when the election is announced. Timeshift (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as the election is called it should go straight into the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

New lead proposal

Based on the FA Barack Obama:

Julia Eileen Gillard (born 29 September 1961) is the 27th and current Prime Minister of Australia. She is the first female to hold the office. Gillard previously served as the Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Education and Social Inclusion, from December 2007 until she resigned after her promotion to Prime Minister in June 2010.

What do you think? Feel free to make changes -- we are a wiki. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC) :)

Possibly "woman" instead of "female", which is a bit biological. Perhaps "from 2007 to her promotion to the prime-ministership in June 2010". Tony (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Who keeps putting her into a prefabricated "religion" slot?

Full marks to the editors who are reverting this. Perhaps we need to schedule guard duty. Tony (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard Image update

Hello. I have been searching all day for a suitable, free image of Julia Gillard to update the one on this page. I contend that the one hosted at the Socialist Alternative on http://www.sa.org.au/component/content/article/2790-gillards-labor-offers-nothing-for-workers is a fantastic image and should be used. It states at the bottom of SA's site that all content on their pages is licensed under CC Australia 2.5 - and therefore can be used on WP.

One editor has contended that this image is not free as he does not believe that SA took it, but I believe he is wrong, my main evidence is that a Tin Eye search for all similar images on the web, found for the next 72 hours at http://www.tineye.com/search/7a37b10a6f36b01ed60dc0f1633096eb2388c914/?sort=size&order=desc showed no results. I therefore believe that SA do in fact own the image as content on their site, as they state on every page, and therefore would like to change Gillard's main image to this.

Any thoughts, comments, suggestions both on the quality of the image (I know its small scale, but it will have to do) and on the copyright situation is more than welcome before I make this change. Thankyou! E.3 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There are discussions of this at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Site clearly states CC license for all content, can we use images hosted on their server? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Gillard image from Socialist Alternative is free? Doubts.... We really don't need more discussions of the topic. Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can use a free image of Jodie Foster as a fill-in. Or vice-versa.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - is it time to semi-protect this article?

Given that there is an election on and that the level of vandalism by IP editors is quite large, I suggest that we semi-protect this article. Does anyone object to me doing that? --Bduke (Discussion) 10:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do. Isn't pending revisions supposed to negate the need? Timeshift (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that semi protection is justified. While pending revisions seems to be working well for low and medium traffic articles, in high traffic articles the constant stream of vandalism being reverted means that changes to the article by established editors don't show up on watchlists as they're drowned out by reverts. This article is currently getting 3000-6000 hits per day, which seems to include more vandals than pending changes works effectively for. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Semi-protection is warranted at least until after the election. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My response seems to have been removed. You make a fair point Nick-D. Timeshift (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure, but I think pending revisions is still being tested on a sample of articles and this is not one of them. I was seeing "pending revisions" flagged on my watch list. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as my view goes, I can see 'automatically accepted' next to the established editors on this page's history. Timeshift (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think semi is warranted considering how much activity there is... Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As there now seems to be a consensus, I've semi-protected the article for an indefinite period. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

New photo

I'm not sure if it's actually of any use, but I've just uploaded this photo of Gillard with the US Ambassador on 25 June. It's a pretty ordinary photo of both people and the event it depicts isn't terribly notable. On the other hand, it's the only PD photo we have so far of her as PM. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's definately of use, but definately not as Gillard's main picture. I've added it to the PM section. Timeshift (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jimmywhite20, 3 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "She was also formerly the secretary of the left-wing organisation, Socialist Forum." to "She was also formerly the secretary of the left-wing organisation, Socialist Forum - a vehicle set up for disaffected communists to join the Labor Party. She remained a member of Socialist Forum from 1998-2002, after which the group merged with the Fabian Society." The original text is incomplete.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/coalition-offers-pensioners-4b-poll-incentives/story-e6frf7l6-1111114702081 Jimmywhite20 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done --Stickee (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope the hyphens were changed to the proper en dashes. Tony (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian Atheist Category

Julia Gillard has specifically stated she does not believe in God. Why was she removed from the Australian atheists category? Evidence for this can be seen here, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pm-tells-it-as-she-sees-it-on-the-god-issue-20100629-zjad.html and here, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939879.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Logical Positivist (talk • contribs) 14:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed this before, but Gillard has never described herself, as far as anyone can tell, as an atheist as such. She has stated that she is agnostic, but that was a little while back. Some sources are interpreting her statement that way, but as she hasn't made the statement herself it seems safer just to leave it out. We do mention that she doesn't believe in God in the body of the article though. - Bilby (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As she has stated she does not believe in God, surely that means she is an atheist by definition? And wasn't the previous discussion about whether it was legitimate to put atheist in the religion section of the infobox, not the category?The Logical Positivist (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion was partially about that, but it was also about whether it was appropriate to describe her as an atheist in the first place. And as for not believing in God making someone automatically an atheist - agnostics and Scientologists (among others) don't believe in God either, but I doubt they'd be happy being described as atheists. The point is that there is uncertainty over whether it is more accurate to classify Gillard as an agnostic or as an atheist. The media seem to have decided that she's an atheist, but she's actually said nothing to confirm that. Frickeg (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agnostics can be believers or non-believers. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, rather than belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.27.204 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 September 2010

I too have not seen any confirmed quote where Gillard uses either of the "A" words to describe herself. Until that time it is not appropriate to apply a category that she has not confirmed. Now, if we had a category for "Lapsed Welsh Baptists Who Don't Believe In God" ..... WWGB (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

1. If she were definitely an atheist would that warrant a category stating such? I'd go with whatever is the general consensus on that, which currently seems to be yes, as can be seen with any other articles about atheists. Donama (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

2. Is she an atheist and do we have reliable sources to back it up? The answer to that is yes because she said "I don't believe in God". It is irrelevant whether she's used the word to describe herself. No one should be getting hung up on that! If woman A says "I have an exclusive sexual preference for women" she doesn't have to use the word lesbian to be one. If man B says "I was was born and live in the Netherlands" he doesn't have to use the word Dutch to be so. Donama (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a globally accepted definition of atheism?  Davtra  ^(talk) 01:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia states: "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities." That can be considered universal for Anglophones which is who we target with the English Wikipedia. Donama (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath of the 2010 election

Now that the elction's over, we need to give this article a complete cleaning up. True, she hasn't resigned yet, but then again, she didn't have an electoral mandate before, and she doesn't have one now. The issues section will have to be shortened and the election 2010 section and it's aftermath should be expanded. Is she in fact, the shortest "non-caretaker" prime minister in Austrailian history?Ericl (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And what makes you so confident she will not continue as PM, albeit of a minority government? WWGB (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she's taller than the average for women. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 14:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping you wouldn't say thatEricl (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, people involved in an encyclopedic environment are assumed to use language that means what it says and vice-versa. Let this be a lesson to you.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this crap about no electoral mandate? Australian PMs are never elected by the people. We elect local members. The party with the largest number of members forms government. The leader of that party becomes PM. Leaders can change even though the government doesn't. It has happened many times in Australia's history. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Party" that got the largest number of seats is the Liberal/National coalition. Regardless, the way it was reverted to after my edit implied that she and her party were way ahead and were to get a comfortable majority, which they most certainly did NOT.Ericl (talk)

In a hung parliament, the government is not necessarily formed by the party or coalition with the most seats of their own. It all depends on the cross-benches. This is not the place for prosecuting the case for any side to become the next government. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that a mention that the election results are still being determined, as a way of tying up an ambiguous loose end until the result is known? Without speculation on what that result may be, per Wikipedia policy? —sroc (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds wise. Can we also agree to discuss it in terms of which party won (or gained power), and which leader thus became Prime MInister? My point in entering this discussion was to emphasise that in the Australian system we do not elect Prime Ministers. Successful parties (or coalitions) do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

While you are technically correct, adverts such as "don't risk Abbott" and "do you really know Julia Gillard" suggest that the parties would have voters believe otherwise. WWGB (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

But the truth is out there. Only voters in two electorates would have seen Gillard's or Abbott's names on their ballot papers. And this is an encyclopaedia> We don't have to follow the lead of the parties and the moron mass media. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite work out what the issue is here. Tony (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added info on the election results to date in the lead and the separate section, by reference to either party/coalition reaching a majority. There are already sufficient reference to both leaders for context, IMHO. This will no doubt be updated in the coming days as more becomes known. However, Wikipedia is not the place to speculate on who may or may not form government; information should only be added if it is reliable, unbiased and well-sourced. It may be best to avoid major revisions until a new government is definitely forms, which may be days away. I think that the text that I have added accurately reflects the situation as it stands, and is certainly sufficient for an article about Gillard (rather than the election specifically, which is covered in a separate article). Of course, anyone who disagrees is free to discuss/edit. —sroc (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Although a hung parliament is almost certain, it is not yet confirmed. Votes are still being counted, and will continue for several days yet. The ABC is now calling Labor 72 seats, Coalition 70 seats, 4 seats in doubt[2]; it is possible (though unlikely) that Labor could pick up those seats and form government outright. Different news outlets have different counts, and some seats that had been counted against one candidate have been retracted and cast back in doubt. Let's not call it a hung parliament until the results are in. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, however many news sources may speculate: if anything, we might say that "political analysts predict a hung parliament" citing sources that say so, but we cannot state it as a fact yet. —sroc (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm dubious about listing something that is considered in all quarters a certainty. The four seats the ABC has in doubt are Boothby, Denison, Dunkley and Hasluck. I don't know about "predicting" a hung parliament either, because no one is predicting it - everyone is acting as though it were incontrovertible truth. Considering the main page is also saying "hung parliament", I think it's safe to stick with that, especially when the point will be moot anyway (and if Labor does get a majority, we can include that as a subsequent development, since I think most would agree it'd be more than noteworthy to include the days of overwhelming assumption. While Wikipedia should not speculate, we also shouldn't separate ourselves from the mainstream. Find me a commentator who reckons a majority government's possible, and I'll concede the point. Frickeg (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim hope for Labor to form government? WWGB (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I readily agree that "everyone is acting as though it were incontrovertible truth", but that doesn't make it so. The article's I've read from the ABC (including the citation) use caution wording such as "might" when referring to the independents having the balance of power. I don't see the harm in saying "almost certainly" here. In the remote event that either side were to win outright, we would have some egg on our face by having stated it as fact, albeit that we won't be the only ones to have misread it. That said, I won't revert and will let others argue the point one way or the other. —sroc (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "We came out with a 50.2 two-party to a 49.8 in favour of Labor, which shows that we're very likely to have a hung Parliament. It was so close to 50-50 it wasn't funny," said Newspoll chief executive Martin O'Shannessy.[3]
• "The nation's political fate could rest on three sitting independent MPs - Rob Oakeshott, Bob Katter and Tony Windsor." [4]
• "There are 150 members of the House of Representatives, so to have an outright majority one of the parties needs to hold 76 seats. Neither Labor nor the Coalition looks likely to reach that point." [5]

—sroc (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

*cough* (Reverted.) Frickeg (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's officially hung. I'm making the edits. —sroc (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I think having no religion listed is just to score political points. Julia is proud of having no religion, and good on her. Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating and Malcolm Fraser all have their respective religions listed in infoboxes. I think we should write None in infoboxEnidblyton11 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the massive discussion on this topic above us. WP:CONSENSUS was thoroughly thrashed out. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Enidblyton. In short, inserting a slot just because a few other politicians may find it convenient to trade on their allegiance to one brand in the supernatural industry is to expose us to charges of POV. Tony (talk)

Yes. In fact, I would add the word claimed in front of allegiance in that post. Although Julia does seem to have been emphasising the honesty of her position, despite the political damage not claiming to be religious may do to her among the religious bigots. Perhaps the articles of all politicians who do claim allegiance to religion should be qualified by highlighting that whatever they claim to be is simply that, a claim. And we know that politicians work very hard on their image, don't we? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Caretaker PM

Hi all,

I have heard this a lot now - the PM is being referred as the Caretaker PM by a majority of media outlets, is this correct? If so, should we throw it into the article somewhere?

CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's not going to matter one way or the other by this time tomorrow, but she's still the full PM until someone else is sworn in to replace her. The government is operating under the caretaker conventions, which greatly limit the powers of ministers and the PM, but this is only a convention and isn't legally binding. John Howard was officially the PM for about a week after the 2007 election until Rudd was sworn in to replace him. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there are 2 meanings of "caretaker PM":

• (a) someone who's sworn in as PM on the understanding that their tenure is limited - such as Frank Forde in 1945, and John McEwen in 1967. These PMs and their governments are not subject to the Caretaker Conventions, but are limited by political practicalities to maintaining the status quo until the "real" PM is known (which is why they're often not unreasonably but still inaccurately characterised as "acting PM")
• (b) an incumbent PM whose government goes into caretaker mode during an election period and in some cases for a period afterwards, until the result is clear. These PMs and their governments are subject to the Caretaker Conventions, and hence it seems perfectly justifiable to refer to the PM as a "caretaker" during these periods

Malcolm Fraser in 1975 satisfied both meanings simultaneously. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The article will have to be updated either way tomorrow (or whenever a result is declared), but for now, I've added a one-liner to the lead with a link to the relevant article (which deserves a workout at a time when it is certainly justified to call upon it). Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken until the last minute to fit this in! —sroc (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Election 2010 v. 2.0?

hi, I was just wondering if anyone knew what would happen if we go to another election, and the same thing were to happen? By which I mean another hung parliament. And what if, hypothetically, this were to continue ad nauseum? Whuld the Goveror General (or possibly the Queen) have to step in and appoint someone PM, or would it turn into some sort of martial law situation, or what? CybergothiChé (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All the talk of another election before parliament returns has been ill-informed media hype. The path is pretty well defined. A new election may happen down the track (as it always can), but has always been less likely than parliament returning with one party "chosen" by the Governor-General to govern. Only then is the real strength of the government going to be determined. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter anymore http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/ , but thanks CybergothiChé (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the word defeat

"The 2010 federal election saw the incumbent Gillard Labor government defeat the Abbott Coalition opposition, forming a minority government with the support of an Australian Greens MP and three independent MPs." is incorrect.

The Libreal govenment was not defeated. Since it is a minority governmentm neither side can claim victory....

perhaps Labour staffers should not be writting pages about Labour MPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.240.54 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Liberal government was defeated... in 2007. Wishful thinking, eh? --Canley (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Labor defeated the Coalition. Abbott remains leader of the opposition before and after the election, Gillard remains PM before and after the election. This is fact, I suggest you get over unelectable Tony. Timeshift (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Timeshift. For all the inevitable bleating we're going to have to put up with about illegitimacy, mandates, highest primary vote, highest TPP vote, coalitions, alliances and seats won – if the Opposition cannot pass a motion of no confidence in the Gillard government in the House of Representatives, then they have been defeated in the election. That's it. --Canley (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be a bumper term of federal government for wikipedia, that's for sure... Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Labor defeated the Coalition." Not by itself, and not yet. It requires the support of the Greens and two of the Three Amigos to get a majority in the House of Reps - which still hasn't been tested. Grassynoel (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Who knows what may yet transpire. But as of now, the Governor-General is quite satisfied that Gillard should be permitted to continue leading the government. As of now, Labor has defeated the Coalition. Let me quote myself from Talk:Australian federal election, 2010#Labor Wins: "It's a hair-splitter. Whatever the actual numbers may be, one side (ultimately) gets to be the next government and the other side doesn't - and that's all that really matters in the end. How tenuous the winning party's hold on government may be is not the point here." -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We are all buried in detail right now. I like to think about how this will end up being summarised in a lot fewer words in 50 years time. I suspect it will be something like "Labor narrowly defeated the Coalition with the help of the Greens". For the speculators out there, the next sentence could say something like either "To everyone's surprise, the new government lasted the full term", or "After only three months, the fragile coalition fell apart and..." It's a defeat, at least for now. Everything else is detail. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but if there is any problem with that line, wouldn't it be that it implies all 3 independents supported labor? Shouldn't it just say 2? Unless I've got my facts wrong. All I know is that Bob Katter supported liberal, and the other two supported labor. Anoldtreeok (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You overlooked Andrew Wilkie. WWGB (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Labor defeated the Coalition. Abbott remains leader of the opposition before and after the election, Gillard remains PM before and after the election. This is fact, perhaps those who keep harping on should question why Abbott could *only* gain seats in Queensland. Gillard commands a majority support of MPs in the lower house prior to and after the election, therefore she will be able to defeat any motions of no confidence, therefore she has defeated the Coalition. If anyone wishes to say otherwise, they will need to form WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page first per standard wikipedia policies. Until such time as WP:CONSENSUS is formed, take this as a notice that any edits in this area will be reverted without hestitation. Thankyou kindly. Timeshift (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And take it as notice that you will also be subject to reverting without hesitation if you do not have consensus for the contention that Labor "defeated" the Coalition at the election. Afterwriting (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wishing to deviate from the status quo. For this, you require WP:CONSENSUS. Of all the regular contributors above, *all* agree that it is correct that Gillard defeated Abbott. It is incumbent upon the person wanting something to change for new consensus to be formed. If you continue to edit war you will be banned from wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has started to awaken memories of a past federal party leader in Australia (1980s?), who insisted for some time after an election that he hadn't lost. Problem was, he wasn't in government. It all began to look pretty silly pretty soon, and he gave up on that line, the media gave up, and history now sees it as a defeat. Let's not waste time on this issue. The party providing the PM is the winner.

Yes, that was Billy Snedden. After the 1974 election, he took the rather confusing stance that, while the Libs didn't win, they didn't lose either, and that that somehow diminished Labor's win in a way he never quite got around to explaining. He lasted less than a year after that; Malcolm Fraser took over, and the rest is history. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. Yep. That was it. I never did understand his position. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Neither did anyone else. He took the secret to his grave. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Marital status

Why is this important enough to deserve a mention in the lead? Nothing to do with pereceptions of her due to her sex, I hope. 86.147.163.85 (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with you that it doesn't belong in the lead. One does have to question the motives or perspective of those who are determined that things like this do matter that much. HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I wondered about this too. I really think this isn't appropriate for the lead as it doesn't relate to the reasons why she's notable. After all, there are loads of unmarried, childless women. It really only belongs in the personal section unless it becomes related to some event that affects her activity/notability as PM. What do others think? Donama (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Frickeg (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Signature in the infobox. Why?

Well? HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PM's new signature says it all WWGB (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

While it's part of the template, I agree that it's completely pointless and achieves nothing other than adding visual clutter to what's already the most crowded part of the article. I'm all for removing it. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck getting consensus to remove the signature from every Prime Minister's infobox. Until that is achieved, you are just cherry picking. WWGB (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But why is it there? "Because it's how we always do it" is pretty much the worst possible answer IMHO. (I like challenging the status quo.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd support removing it from all the articles on PMs. It's pretty pointless. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. I shall start with this one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

and I revert as there is no consensus. Take it to someone like Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board for real consensus, rather than cherry-picking one PM on the strength of 3 !votes. WWGB (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it's how we always do it :D Seriously, how is this not an appropriate answer? Because it's how we always do it is an excellent reason, unless consensus says otherwise. This is the key. People are perfectly entitled to challenge the status quo... but this is done via discussion, not unilateral edits without discussion. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on. You're a smarter person than that. That's a discussion right above these very words. Give me a real reason to include it. Not a statement of what we "always do". There's a Wikipedia term (which I cannot recall right now) for using Wikipedia rules and guidelines inappropriately. This is a classic example. If no-one here can give a reason other than "we always do it that way", my respect for some of you has slipped a lot. I will go to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Thanks for the suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What is hard to comprehend about this simple wikipedia rule? Consensus is required to change from the status quo. As yet there is no consensus... not even close. You're acting as though i'm required to justify the status quo. No. You are required to justify changing from the status quo, and in the process, gain a WP:CONSENSUS. My vote is in. Timeshift (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity. Crank votes are allowed to be ignored. (Not that I'm suggesting.....) Anyway, it's at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board now. Answer my question challenging the status quo there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To change from the status quo (signatures for government leaders are standard on wikipedia) also requires a consensus far beyond a 30 minute three to one vote. I'm glad to see it's gone to the notice board for discussion. Until such time as WP:CONSENSUS is formed, the status quo shall remain. And I must say, there is a truly fascinating revelation that's just occurred on the notice board. If you want to argue against that and do the hard yards to attempt to get it removed... go for your life! I won't get in the way =) Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent. I left the discussion open for over a week. Still no reason given for including signatures. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Signature in the infobox. Why?" - What a strange topic. "Why do birds - suddenly appear - everytime you are near...?" ..... Her signature is there for much the same reason her picture is there. (1) It personalises the corpus. (2) It's interesting. (3) It adds colour to the article. (4) Heads of state's (I know she is just PM ... - pheeew that could've caused a panic on the page) signatures appear on notable documents. Ummm ... Anyway why do people collect autographs? I seem to remember our Barry Jones is an autograph collector. Why would he do that? - Cablehorn (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes her signature is personal, but "being interesting", "adding colour" and "appearing on official documents" are not encyclopaedic reasons for including an image. In my opinion the status quo is broken there and it's just something not quite irksome enough for most to ever bother about fixing. Since Hilo's made an attempt to shift this I'm making an effort to help out. Timeshift, Cablehorn and WWGB, normally you all make an effort to deal with things logically and in the spirit of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia rather than entertainment/marketing site. Can you have a serious think about this and then put your comments. Yes, I'm implying that you haven't thought seriously about this yet. Donama (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an optional item in the infobox. A decision has to be made to include optional items. I can't see how asking why a decision was made is a strange question. But I do thank you for giving a better reason for including it than "We always do." Your reasons are not reasons I would have paid attention to, and still seem very trivial to me, but I can see that some would be interested. I await others' thoughts with interest now myself. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's not broke don't fix it =) Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you take that approach for elections too, no matter who is in power? ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I don't object to an Abbott signature if that's what you're inferring. Timeshift (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of it from infobox or anywhere else in article. More detail on why in comment on WP:AWNB. Hilo's points are also compelling reasons. Donama (talk) 00:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dumps

The climate change section needs revisionism. I propose adding the following: The first plank in her climate change platform was scrapped on 7 October 2010, with the dumping of the citizens assembly. Instead consensus will be achieved via a committee of politicians representing the ALP and Greens, and the public will be informed via a website. [6] I am concerned that this might be seen as being too gentle on Gillard in its wording - most news articles are somewhat more robust in their approach and I have selected the kindest one I could find from the ABC. --Pete (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about the use of words more appropriate in journalism than in an encyclopaedia. These include scrapped, dumping, and (first) plank. The first two are emotionally loaded. The last is just jargon. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding consensus on appropriate wording is what we're all about! --Pete (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. The kind of wording we need is "On 7 October Gillard announced that she no longer planed to create a citizens' assembly to look at climate change, but would instead seek guidance from a panel of ALP and Greens politicians." That language avoids judgemental words (and could probably be further improved). I am certain that many methods will be used to "inform" the public. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was an election promise - hence the use of the word "plank" - needs to be mentioned. We don't need to hold a blowtorch to her head, but we can't let it go unmentioned. According to an ABC webpoll, about 80% of people think it was a pretty sorry policy anyway, so I think she did the right thing to lose it. On 7 October Gillard announced that her pre-election promise to create a citizens' assembly to investigate climate change would not proceed, but she would instead seek guidance from a panel of ALP and Greens politicians. --Pete (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I told you my words could be further improved! I'd be happy with that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's wrong to say that this is a "a panel of ALP and Greens politicians" as a) its a parliamentary committee, not a 'panel' b) Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are members of the committee and Gillard has repeatedly invited the Coalition to provide representatives and c) the committee will also be advised by independent experts (it's membership is listed here). Moreover, all the news stories refer to the committee advising the government as a whole, and not just Gillard. Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create an article on the group and link to it, to clarify the precise details of its interfaith workings. A key point is that the Coalition is having nothing to do with it, but if we list the complete makeup, it reads very clunky. --Pete (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)