Talk:Julia Gillard/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

A quick bucket of whitewash

I'm always interested when I see some movement on the BLPs of recent-ish politicians. Late on a Saturday night, having a quick look through and tilting the article one way or another can seem like a good idea. Trouble is that these articles have usually gone through a fair bit of heated discussion to get to where they are, and knocking out big chunks of "contentious material"[1] just upsets a precarious balance.

Unless there is some recent revelation, then making an edit to material more than a few years old is always questionable in my book. We've been over this sort of material any number of times already. The loyalty material has been in the article for at least eighteen months, likewise the "fractured relationships" content. Has anything changed on this stuff beyond one editor coming along and deciding they don't like it because it doesn't tell the narrative they would prefer?--Pete (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As per my previous posting you have not answered why this material should be included. How is Beazley's statement particularly notable. How it wasn't included as a POV argument that Gillard is disloyal. The statement is contentious and unless you can give good grounds for it, ought be removed. Alans1977 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's included because consensus, and we are now at WP:BRD. Please gain consensus before removing long-standing content. --Pete (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any consensus for its inclusion. Where is this consensus you speak of? Alans1977 (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Without wading through the archives, it's found in WP:Consensus:Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. WP:BRD then applies, as per longstanding practice. Trying to slip something through in the wee small hours and then edit-warring when it is reverted and under discussion is not the preferred way of doing things here. --Pete (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So you know enough about the content to say that it wasn't a recent addition? I've been looking through archives and can see no discussion on its inclusion. So again please justify its inclusion given that it is contentious. Further its inclusion seems to fit only one purpose, to further a POV argument that Gillard is disloyal. Alans1977 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at the history of the page - just select "Oldest 500 edits" - shows that 500 edits ago in 2012, both sections you regard as contentious were included in the article[2]. This is Wikipedia, there's a record of everything. --Pete (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because others have overlooked the material doesn't mean there is consensus for it. Surely you understand that. Alans1977 (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you read through archives, where you will find absolutely no discussion at all. IE, there is no consensus and as the material is contentious there ought be an argument for its inclusion. Alans1977 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've pointed you towards the policy, a firm part of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and quoted the relevant section. If you want to question longstanding policy, then here is not the place to do it. In an article as visible and contentious as this one, nothing is overlooked. --Pete (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Then please demonstrate where the discussion on the material has occurred. There's only 5 pages of archives. If it has occurred you should be able to locate it in less than 5 minutes. Alans1977 (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

See above. That was an hour ago. Perhaps you should give up editing Wikipedia until the morning if you are finding it difficult to comprehend plain English? I was a night cabbie for five years and I'm now reminded of many early Sunday morning discussions with folk who were convinced that they were right beyond all evidence. --Pete (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I presume by your above statement that you were unable to find any discussion in archives on the material. Which means you're slumping to personal insults to try and justify your argument for the inclusion of the contentious material. Sorry no cigar. Alans1977 (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You presume wrong. If material remains unchallenged in Wikipedia for long enough, it has gained consensus. As per policy linked to multiple times. You need to gain consensus to remove longstanding content, especially when WP:BRD has come into play. Arguing out of personal convictions, no matter how forcefully expressed, isn't a good substitute for over-riding wikipolicy developed over the years. --Pete (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The material was sneaked in late 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Gillard&diff=519487781&oldid=519487041 and no one noticed it until recently when I read the page. The material is contentious and its inclusion needs to be justified by argument. I notice that you have not even attempted to justify its inclusion. Alans1977 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

See the section above, where I responded to your direct question. You seem to think that it's a POV argument when in fact it is a well sourced statement from a respected Labor leader, relevant and notable in the context of Gillard's demonstrable disloyalty later on. --Pete (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but you've just given yourself away as trying to further a POV argument. No cigar. Alans1977 (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Beazley's POV, rather than that of some random editor. You do see this, I trust? --Pete (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed the statement itself is Beazley's POV. Inclusion into the article displays a POV of those putting it in. The POV being that Gillard is disloyal. Alans1977 (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The POV being that Gillard is disloyal. It might be worth adding in a few relevant quotes from Kevin Rudd here. --Pete (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You're not actually making a substantive argument for the inclusion of the material. Do you care to? Or are you just following me around and arguing against anything that I do? Alans1977 (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't think the direct opinions of a couple of senior Labor leaders have any standing or relevance? --Pete (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Senior labor leaders? Only the opinions of has-beens as far as I can tell. Even then only opinions. So are you actually prepared to make a substantive argument? Or are you just following me around? There's a word for that. Alans1977 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this material isn't worth including. If secondary sources note that Gillard had a prominent role in toppling Beazley (as I believe was the case) this should be stated clearly and plainly, and note her role as a powerbroker (from memory, she provided most of the votes Rudd needed to be elected, but didn't stand for the leadership position herself as she didn't have quite enough support) rather than presenting her as being an isolated traitor as this POV-pushing material attempted. It's fair to say that there was a widespread lack of confidence in Beazley's ability to win the 2007 election among the ALP in 2006. Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm for expanding it and making it plain in context. The infighting caused by the Rudd/Gillard thing cost Labor dearly and destroyed what appeared to be two promising Prime Ministerial careers. The Beazley quote is especially valuable because it represents criticism from within, as opposed to the usual party line. We see telling comments from within the Liberals directed at Tony Abbott, for example, and they are all the better for not being the usual internal flannel or the usual criticism from the opposing team. Talking about the Rudd thing - and nor was he seen as likely to win the 2010 election by his own side - without mentioning her similar disloyalty when Beazley's deputy is leaving a crucial element out of the story. She had form. --Pete (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're approaching a BLP article with that slanted attitude you really should find something else to do. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not seeing your point here. Providing well-sourced and relevant material to help readers understand the full story is what we do. --Pete (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. If you've got sources saying she delivered a lot of votes to Rudd and it was worded as such I wouldn't see an issue. However including statements about her loyalty, regardless of who said it, is clearly pushing a POV line. Alans1977 (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What Beazley says is relevant for Beazley's article. Not Gillard's. Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

What Beazley says about Gillard is relevant here, surely. There are a few political articles where loyalty is a factor. I guess Gillard demonstrated that she had bigger balls than Costello when it came to the crunch. --Pete (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you even hear yourself. It is clear you are pushing a POV agenda. Alans1977 (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what I thought after reading Pete's reply and before Alan's reply. Timeshift (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014

Add the profession of lawyer to Julia Gillard's profile. | profession = Lawyer Aajay3 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. AlanS^talk 10:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that may be a misspelling for a word that sounds similar. Not all Wikipedians are native English speakers. --Pete (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I had made the change before noting that the user requesting the change had previously made it themselves and then Bbb23 had reverted it. Hence I reverted myself. AlanS^talk 23:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

To head off a potential edit war over this change by Andreas11213, I'd note that Gillard describes herself as being an atheist at several points in her recent memoirs and briefly discusses her views towards religion on pages 206-207. That said, I don't agree with Andreas's rational for making this change - there have been repeated discussions of whether this field should be filled here, and a quick search of the page archive brings at least some of them up: [3]. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Andreas seems unaware of Talk page archives. I have reverted his change, and pointed where he cane find at least one such discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

AWU Affair

The [Royal] Commissioner's statement accepting the builder Athol James's testimony over Gillard's (with regard to whether Wilson helped pay for the renovations), is highly relevant and important to the article, properly referenced, and should be included. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/unions-royal-commission-clears-julia-gillard-but-questions-her-credibility-as-a-witness-20141219-12alcd.html Engleham (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems undue, especially given that we don't even discuss the allegations about her home renovations here. The significant finding in the Royal Commission was that she did not commit any crimes, and was not aware of any crimes that were committed. That she had a professional lapse in judgement is also significant. We want to focus on those two, as they are the big issues. The third point is a complex one, but comes down to the Commissioner finding her testimony on one issue to be less believable than the testimony of another witness. That seems far less important than the first two, especially given that it wasn't a factor in the major findings. - Bilby (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a factor in the major findings ("Julia Gillard did not commit any crime and was not aware of any criminality on the part of these union officials"), but it was an unexpected and notable outcome of the proceedings. Let's review the Commissioner's words:

There is a benign explanation for Julia Gillard’s testimony and there is a less benign explanation. Behind each explanation lies the fact that, unlike Athol James, she had a strong motive to see her version of events accepted.’ The benign explanation is that the testimony proceeded from vellity. She wanted it to be the case that she had paid for all the renovation work. Over 20 years, subconsciously, she convinced herself that it was the case. So dearly cherished an outcome became inexpugnably part of her mentality.’

The less benign explanation is that she knew her testimony was false. It might have been knowingly false in the sense that she remembered the key events happening, but chose to deny them. Or it might have been knowingly false in the sense that she could not remember one way or the other whether the key events happened, but chose to deny them. In each case she was telling a knowing untruth about her mental state…

The careers of our elected officials rest, first and last, on public trust. Here, on a matter of absolutely crucial testimony, I read the Commissioner as saying that, for one reason or another, benign or otherwise, they cannot trust the words of the former Prime Minister to be the truth on this matter. Is that not correct? Tell me I'm wrong in my interpretation if so. If my understanding is correct, on what level is the Commissioner's assessment not relevant to inclusion in the article in some form? I believe the manner I included it was appropriate, succinct, and moderate. Here it is again: "However, the Commissioner did not accept her testimony as to whether Wilson had helped pay for home renovations, stating that the builder "Athol James's testimony is to be accepted over hers. He was a witness of truth."' Engleham (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

At most he's saying that she might have been mistaken, or she might have been lying, about a question on a 20 year old event that proved not to be a major issue, on the grounds that he was more convinced by another witness' account. I'll see what other people think, but given that we are only summarising the key issues here anyway, I don't see any value in including this, and especially not in giving it more weight than the major findings of the commission. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

I am a physician and I would appreciate it if an established user would add that Julia Gillard, when Prime Minister, called for a Royal Commission to investigate the churches for sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults. Her courage in doing that has opened up the worldwide clergy sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. As a Catholic, I am grateful to her. As we learn of the suicides of at least 55 boys in Ballarat, who were sexually abused/raped by their religious priest and brother teachers, we realize how much has been covered up by Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church. There is need for justice for the victims and their families. It is important to give Ms. Gillard credit for what she has done towards accountability of the Church and for the protection of the innocence of children in future. Sincerely, Dr Rosemary Eileen McHugh, MD, MSpir 64.234.7.188 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Unmentioned Policies

I would think that the National Disability Insurance Scheme and plain packaging legislation passed during Julia Gillard's time as Prime Minister would be important enough to add to the article. Surely they are both more important than say, her opinion that Australia should become a republic. 110.32.146.252 (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Julia Gillard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060425162143/http://abc.net.au:80/news/politics/2003/02/item20030218083501_1.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/politics/2003/02/item20030218083501_1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100820153049/http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/transcript--julia-gillard,-town-hall-meeting,-bron/ to http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/transcript--julia-gillard,-town-hall-meeting,-bron/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130721043139/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpQrztCsLg to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVpQrztCsLg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox image

• 
  Current image
• 
  April 2011

With respect to the accordance discussed at the Infobox image discussion on Talk:Tony Abbott, which referred to the infobox image of Julia Gillard,

I would propose that the April 2011 image is more desireable than the current.

The reasons are - reflecting on what was discussed at Talk:Tony Abbott;

• The Australian flag in the new image displays a political environment

• Her pose is more flattering in the new image; the old image looks as though she's only wearing a jacket

• Her hair colour in the new image looks more similar to what it looks like now

• Also, on the note of the Australian flag;

1) John Howard's image displays a flag.

• 

2) Kevin Rudd's doesn't but it is easy to imagine one there.

• 

3) I've proposed on Talk:Tony Abbott to have the image with him and the flag put in.

• 

Current image or the newer image? --60.224.1.215 (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The suggested alternate is a fairly poor photo. Gillard is squinting, and it's not good technically (grainy, slightly overexposed, etc). We don't need a flag in the photo. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nononononono! The suggested image could be used as an excellent example of graininess. It is awful at anything but thumbnail size. We are very lucky to have our current image, and unless something extraordinary comes along in the public domain, we are going to keep it. Massive crops from some happy snap aren't going to cut it. You want a flag in the background, find a shot where the whole image is carefully composed. --Pete (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What is it with these constant proposals to replace the excellent Gillard and Abbott images?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It is an attempt to put a political slant on our encyclopaedia. Have your guy looking strong and positive, the other guy goofy. I like this Gillard photo. Apart from its technical excellence, it shows her as steely and determined. A forced smile for a US army photographer, not really Julia, even if it wasn't quite so grainy and unbalanced. --Pete (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed: the Abbott and Gillard photos are professional-grade images, and we're fortunate to have them. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the photo of Gillard at the Holbrook bypass opening relevant to this article?

I would like to suggest that this event may be significant to Holbrook the NSW country town, however it is not significant to Gillard wp:blp. Just because this event was within 30 days of the end of Gillard's Prime Ministership does not make this photo relevant to this article. If so I would consider that WP:SYNTH. I also note the bypass opening is not mentioned in the article. I did initially remove this photo wp:bold however apparently everyone need to agree first. Regards CamV8 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@CamV8: Whilst I acknowledge that the image of Gillard opening the highway bypass presents no relevance to a leadership vote, I did however add said image to the section of the article, as the opening took place in June 2013, and she was voted out in June 2013. Hence, the image is one of the last free images we have during Gillard's tenure as Prime Minister, and thus, belongs in the section relating to her final moments as Prime Minister. To further establish relevance, per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, perhaps the caption should reflect that X image was taken a couple weeks prior to the spill (obviously written more eloquently). Interested in your thoughts! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Gillard said "I am an atheist" or did she.

Well you are probably wondering why I don't just roll over and call Gillard an atheist. While I agree that this may well be the case but in Wikipedia world it doesn't matter what you think, it only matter what can be proven WP:RS. The proof as I see it doesn't pass the high bar required by WP:BLP or WP:BLPCAT. exhibit a, Washington post. this quote starts "with if I was an American." So I ask myself Is she talking facts here or is she having a joke. I think she is joking. exhibit b, The Australian pay wall hidden quote. “Kevin had to be the leader in our alliance because I understood that I was not what Labor needed at that point: a woman, not married, an atheist,” she writes. “I would not be perceived as the embodiment of safe change.” I read this as Gillard describing the public perception of herself. So on this basis I don't think this passes the test.CamV8 (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

She describes herself as an atheist at about four different points in her autobiography. See page 5 for example (which is the quote used in The Australian). Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

CamV8, your notion that the only sentence by which someone can declare themselves an athiest is the exact statement "I am an atheist" is erroneous. Even Bertrand Russell never said "I am an atheist", though I wondered allowed whether he should describe himself as one. Your analysis of the quote in your paragraph above is not the analysis that would not normally be made by a native English speaker making an honest attempt to interpret a sentence, and communication fundamentally rests on convention. The comment about perception is in a later sentence, and the final clause in the first sentence does not depend upon it. If her meaning was that she was perceived to be a women, not married, an atheist, it would need to be included in that sentence. Semantically, the statement is equivalent to "I understood that, because I am a woman, not married and an athiest, I was not what Labor needed at that point, so Kevin had to be the leader in our alliance."

You say "it doesn't matter what you think", and yet any attempt to compile an encyclopedia relies on a mutually understood analysis of external texts. In some cases there will be genuine controversy, but if 999 English-speakers out of 1000 understand a sentence to mean one thing, and 1 fellow understands it to mean quite something other, we can probably assume the 1 is an anomaly and move on. Ordinary Person (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Nick-D, perhaps you are correct. However I haven't seen the other 3 quotes in her autobiography used as cites for this assertion. I assume the autobiography is a wp:primary and there are no other secondary WP:RS.

Thanks for the english lesson Ordinary Person, WP:BLPCAT states if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. see WP:NONDEFINING. I suggest deleting the categorization. CamV8 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The Succeeded by section has been messed with, it links to Kevin Rudd again, rather than Tony Abbott.

Appreciate the sentiment but not on for wikipedia obviously, I don't know anything about editing here tho so I didn't want to try and mess around with the main title bit lest I break it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.185.156 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I came back and decided to go fix it myself very carefully, only to find out that the ability to edit is locked.... Not your best moment in my eyes WIKIPEDIA I just want the article to have the right link! :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.185.156 (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Gillard was succeeded by Rudd for a very brief time in 2013 before Tony Abbott succeeded him. The article is correct. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

carbon tax want to add

One of the results of this was the electorate saw Carbon Tax introduction as a Gillard’s greatest broken promise that there would be no carbon tax under her government. This broken promise was still seen as a major election issue many years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 May 2016‎

Thanks for discussing this addition. A couple of points:

• You have included two references, one opinion column by Denis Shanahan in The Australian, and one by Annabel Crabb on ABC's The Drum. These references demonstrate only that the opinion that the CPRS was Gillard's "greatest broken promise" is that of Denis Shanahan—I can't see how this opinion can be reasonably assigned to "the electorate" with these references or otherwise.
• The whole issue just needs more nuance and detail than to flat out call it a "broken promise". Crabb's article does contain some of that nuance, in fact this article does in an earlier paragraph—that in the same breath Gillard undertook to introduce carbon pricing or an ETS; the hung parliament situation; and Gillard's (foolish, in my opinion) concession that it was a tax. More detail is needed in the sentence about being "seen as a major election issue many years later": seen by whom (please, not "the electorate") and how many years later? Does this mean in 2013? 2016? This text and the references don't provide any factual information that is not already included, so I really don't think this passage is necessary or neutral.
• Your edit comment when you added it the first time: "This really hurt"—what does that mean? Really hurt Labor? The electorate? Yourself? Speaking of edit comments, "Look get real and drop this stupidity." is pretty uncivil.

--Canley (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

straw man arguments to avoid the issue, write something proper — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 May 2016‎

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Julia Gillard/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 06:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this article for a review. Comments to follow. Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Looks good overall, some copyedits would help and in a couple spots the prose gets clunky, but this is GAN, not FAC, so it's not an enormous issue.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The TOC is a bit over-long, mostly because there are a couple spots, were there are too many separate subheadings for short sections -- a one-paragraph subsection really doesn't need its own TOC link. I would suggest the "domestic policies" and "Foreign affairs" sections in particular have at least some of the subsections consolidated (particularly the shorter ones) or made into a bulleted annotated list or some other format that has a similar look but doesn't wind up bulking out the TOC. I also think you can consolidate (and perhaps retitle) Shadow minister (2001–07) and Deputy Opposition leader, 2006–07 -- again, a subheading for a 1-paragraph section is awkward. Similarly, I don't think each of the Montanabw(talk) 07:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is some formatting inconsistency, cite web and cite news each create different formatting and you may want to be sure you use the same template for the same basic source (i.e. the BBC, or ABC, or The Age, etc...). The checklinks tool pings four dead links (click on the tool to see).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Looks solidly sourced, extensively footnoted and pretty solid overall. Any details I catch I will note at the bottom of this chart
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appears well-documented
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig bot hit a couple sources at 33% but they were flagging sourced direct quotations. Not seeing problems here. Montanabw(talk) 08:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It's a political article, so most likely there are always partisans on both sides who claim bias, but this reads with an NPOV tone, touches on both accomplishments and criticisms, uses neutral language and otherwise passes WP:NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Lots of ongoing trolling and vandals, but I see no substantive edit-warring
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All look good with the possible question of File:Bronze bust of PM Julia Gillard.png. In the US (where I am more familiar with the copyright issues) a recent sculpture like this would be viewed as a copyrighted work and thus not a freely-licensed image. But if you can point me to the relevant Australian law that says this is an OK image, it is a useful contribution to the article. Montanabw(talk) 07:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images overall are suitable, though I have to question if File:Juliagillard.JPG is really needed, it's not a particularly great image. Montanabw(talk) 07:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

I will make some suggestions as I go through the article, these may not be in any particular order. Montanabw^(talk) 08:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• The "Early life and career" and "Politics" sections are a little light and disorganized. "Politics" might almost be a subsection of the early career stuff, particularly because some of her history with the law firm is scattered throughout both sections. Take a look at the Tony Abbott article, I think it is a little better structured in these sections.
• List of portfolios: Don't really like the dates in boldface. I'd almost flip the sequence and put the offices first and then the dates. Maybe even do this in chart form.
• On that topic (List of portfolios section), I'm not certain that that section aligns with the list of offices in the infobox, which may not quite align with the succession tables at the end. Looks like this is also something of a repeat of what's in narrative form at Member of Parliament, 1998–2010. I don't see a section like "List of Portfolios on the Rudd, Turnbull, or Abbot articles. Frankly, I'd just make sure all those offices are discussed in the proper place in the narrative and then toss the whole section.
• This link (FN 13) goes to a site requiring a login that appears to not be available to the general public.
• Without access to the above, I cannot verify "a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1987, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1990" -- Did you mean a Master of Arts degree? And either way, what subject? (in the US, you have a Bachelor of Arts BEFORE going to law school...am I confused or is that a typo? )

All for now, will add more. Montanabw^(talk) 08:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Montanabw:, I appreciate the time you've so far taken to review this article. I'll address the points you make, in responding here, but also by making suggested changes to the article. In response to your comments:

• I could try and re-organise said sections, as I see what you mean: both sections somewhat converge especially regarding her work with Slater & Gordon.
• I'll remove the List of Portfolios section, and perhaps explain more about said roles within the MoP 1998-2010 narrative.
• Regarding the sculpture, I too was a little suss considering it is a work of art. However, under Australian law it is apparantly acceptable as per section 65 of the Australian Copyright Act (as documented within the licensing of said image here).
• I've removed the site in question – it must have been availible at the time, publicly, although now it's hidden to those whom are students of the university. This new UniMelb citation also notes a difference in her graduating years (1986, 1989 -- rather than 1987, 1990).
• I think you're confused —as I am . Because the source (and other sources too) have stated that this was the order of her graduation from Melbourne – perhaps Australia's system is different? or that particular university's approach is different? Unfortunately, I'm unable to answer that – I onnly have a source which corroborates what is written.

I'll be making more changes, in order to reflect your suggestions above! Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• • Good progress. I'll AGF on the sculpture, this isn't FAC, so I am permitted to rely upon the licensing as represented at commons. Peek at my other image comments at #6b and perhaps which in with an Aussie like Casliber or someone to see if they can offer an insight into the educational system. I'll continue the review in a bit after you've had a chance to make some edits. Ping me if I drag my feet getting over here in a timely fashion. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi @Montanabw:! I haven't forgotten about the GA review, I assure you! I think it was just after your latest comment above, that I removed the List of Portfolios section (as it is already covered in the body of the article) as per advice in the comments section above; I've also consolidated the "Early life and career" + "Politics" sections into a single section, avoiding repetition of content (per 1B); furthermore, File:Juliagillard.JPG has been removed (per 6B) as there was little to no ties with the respective section it was initially in. In your view, do you believe I'm on the right track? If not, or if you have further suggestions, please let me know. Again, thank you and kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, you are doing good work! OF my concerns in the chart, did you get all the dead links resolved? (Run the tool on this page again...) basically, see 1b and 2a above (still need to tighten the TOC, there really is no need for one-paragraph subsections on every individual topic (TOC 3.3 and 3.4) and see if you can do just a little bit more cleanup and fix up the citations a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 08:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Wonderful to hear! @Montanabw: I've just addressed the dead links issue, by removing them and/or replacing them with relevant active links. I have a couple of concerns however, where I'd be more than grateful to hear your suggestions; firstly, how exactly would I tighten the TOC in terms of ss.3.3 and 3.4 --- would you prefer the smaller sections simply to not appear within the TOC, using a semi-colon heading which therefore negates presence within the TOC or merging the smaller sections to a larger (relevant) section? if it's the latter, there may be difficulties: some smaller sections simply do not have a parent section. How would you suggest addressing this? Secondly, with regards to the format used in the citations, do you mean the type of citation template (ie. cite book, cite news, cite web, etc.)? Is this a significant issue? because, if so, I can address it, but there are 250 references and so therefore, it may not be done in a timely manner.
        • My apologies for asking a million questions! I really would just appreciate some clarification before moving forward (yes! the latter is a pun of Gillard's campaign motto ). Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

On the toc issue, I think you did well to consolidate some of the material, but also yes, I think bolding the subsections so they don't overwhelm the TOC is a good idea too. As for the type of citation template question, I'm sympathetic, I took a racehorse article to FAC with over 200 citations also, I feel your pain. What I spotted were things like citations 184 and 186, where "news.com.au" was italicized for one but not the other. Bottom line is that I think that the GA criteria would prefer consistency, but the FAC criteria requires it. Also, several of the sources that do not list an author actually DO have an author , this could be added. I guess for now for GA, what I'd like most to see is visual consistency: do a skim for inconsistent formatting where you have different formatting or different cite names to the same publication or web site (i.e. news.com.au with and without talics, one or the other please; also I see a lot of BBC vs BBC News; ABC News vs ABC vs Abc.net.au vs ABC Online (where all resolve to an ABC.net.au domain, probably "ABC News", but pick one and stick with it). The Australian (News Limited) vs The Australian , Sydney Morning Herald sometimes linked, sometimes not, (and some inconsistency on the publisher parameter being used or not) etc. Frankly, you probably have to make a judgement call about using the "publisher" and "location" parameters consistently, though that's also an FAC issue more than a GA issue, I'll only ask for cite consistency within the same site (oh, also, The Age (Melbourne: Fairfax Media) vs The Age (Melbourne) vs The Age).

• I won't fuss over author names overmuch for GA, but it's something to be aware of when we use reFill to do cites (I use reFill all the time, so I know it is a godsend, but a godsend with weaknesses) and if you maybe could spotcheck a few, that would be good enough for now. Also check for very incomplete citations, #51 is an example.
• Basically, I won't ask for FAC consistency on a GAN, but try to clean up the worst inconsistencies and double check that citations have full info where possible. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi @Montanabw: I've addressed the following:
    • Inconsistencies with news sites (ie. when citing the ABC, previously references would note any of the following: ABC/ABC News/Abc.com.au/ABC Television/ABC1 and so on). In relation to the ABC, which does have various channels in Australia, I've managed to split it into two: "ABC" (for programs, documentaries etc.) and "ABC News" (for online, television or website news).
    • Inconsistencies in use of the parameters 'location' and 'publisher' in citations. I've removed all 'publisher' paramaters in news sources, and I've prioritised the 'work' parameter. This has fixed the italics issue you spoke about (now all news outlets will be in italics, as opposed to most/some). The 'location' parameter' has been voided in its entirety, as it was rarelyin use.
    • I've managed to add more authors to citations used, as well as complete the citations (which were missing key parameters such as date, access date, author, and so on).
    • I've voided all level 4 sub-sections within the article; this has alleviated a lot of the clutter in TOC.
  • I hope this all on the right path! What are your thoughts? Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

(Jumping in) after fixing multiple duplicate argument errors, I noticed this article was up for GA. Re. the point above about consistency of italics, etc., in citations, I've just run Ohconfucius's script to fix this. It's not perfect, but it does try to do a good job of bringing cite formatting in line with the MOS. Also, please take a look at the rest of the error-tracking categories at the bottom:

• Category:Pages using web citations with no URL
• Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
• Category:CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list

These still have to be fixed. --NSH002 (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar:, I am pleased with the improvements; could you also do the same TOC fix for the "political positions" section -- that one actually has more problems with having one-paragraph subsections. Once that is done, I will gladly approve 1b and the GAN will pass. As far as the issues with the refs, I did a walk-through myself and fixed a couple things I spotted -- that is such painstaking work, and I am very sympathetic to what a pain it is to fix all that stuff. One thing that happened, and I don't know if it was the script or not, but some empty "date=" parameters got removed, and I went in, found the dates and restored them. Frankly, though maybe there are still a few small errors, I'm not seeing anything big enough to bother me, and so to that end, I would say the nitpicking for perfection can be saved for FAC. Criteria 2a clearly met. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I've consolidated said section, which has limited the size of TOC. The format I've chosen to go about this, is three somewhat broad sub-sections which encompass various political positions. The alternative, was to again create sub-sections, like what we had done to the Prime Minister section — but the content in certain political positions was simply too minimal and would have looked quite awkward.

I think the above was the best way to go... but what is your view? are there any other sections that you believe need some clean up? Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You have addressed all concerns I have raised and I am passing this article, congrats! If you intend to go for FAC, there are things I'd suggest you continue to work on, (perhaps adding a section on the historical assessment of her prime ministership, maybe deeper analysis of the evolution of her political thought, maybe having someone more up on Australian politics than I am do a NPOV look - though it looks pretty balanced to me, but what do I know, I'm a Yank.) but nothing here that is relevant to GAN. If you do go to FAC, I'd be glad to help with the inevitable wikignoming and such (generally I hesitate to do both a GAN review and a FAC review on the same article) It was a pleasant process to work with you on this review and you are to be commended for your hard work and dedication; these major articles are always the most difficult to bring to GA and FA status. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thank you very much! I don't quite know as yet when I'll be able to go through the FAC process, as I do have a lot on here and there irl — however, be sure that should I pursue FAC, you'll most certainly be the first person to know, as your guidance has been nothing short of impeccable. It's been an absolute pleasure working on this article with your help, and I look forward to hopefully working with you somewhere else on the project in the future! Best, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Spending on former PM entitlements

I added some statements concerning expenditure incurred since Gillard left office in 2013. My original addition was deleted on the basis no primary sources were referenced. I added those sources with links to the Department of Finance reports. However, the second version of my edits was then deleted because there was not sufficient context and secondary sources. So I added context by reference to reports by the Australian Parliamentary Library and the independent Committee for the Review of Parliamentary Entitlements report, Review of Parliamentary Entitlements Committee Report, published in 2010.

The comments then read as follows:

As well as statutory travel entitlements, former Prime Ministers who have left Parliament have traditionally been provided with "facilities at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day". These entitlements are a recognition of services provided to Australia and of the demands on time that former Prime Ministers face, involving significant travel, administration, and other expenses. Since leaving politics in 2013, Gillard has used $763,779 in these entitlements.

However, this was then deleted on the basis it is not relevant. I have therefore added a section here where relevance can be discussed.

My own view is that the amount incurred by Gillard as a former PMs is clearly a matter relevant to the article, a matter of public interest, and the general issue has been reported several times. I also suggest it is of relevance in particular given the very short time she has left office and the amount incurred, relative to the amount of time other PMs have been out of office and the amounts they have incurred by comparison (I can include a comparison to other PM spending if that is needed).Jane-526 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Posting administrative records with your views on them violates Wikipedia's policy against original research, WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of stuff. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for raising a possible separate basis for objection to the addition of the material I have suggested. As to that basis, I have two questions. First, the policy you have linked to states: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Yet there are reliable, published sources of the spending entitlements sourced for each statement. Secondly, I am not sure how you say I have add "my views" on the material. Could you therefore please explain how the suggested additions constitute original research? I may be missing something. Thank you. Jane-526 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the singular focus on Julia Gillard? John Howard has spent more over the same period—not since he left office in 2007, but from 2013 to 2016—so again, why Gillard? The picking out of Gillard for scrutiny on the topic, then justifying it by presenting an opinion that her spending alone is a matter of public interest, simply does not demonstrate impartial intent. If the general issue of post-PM entitlements is so widely-reported, and there is a notable and verifiable public and media view on that issue, then perhaps a referenced comparison, presented without commentary, on a neutral page such as Prime Minister of Australia or maybe even a new one on MP's entitlements in general, might be more appropriate. While I appreciate that you have attempted to keep the wording neutral and fairly well-referenced in response to the reversions, I think myself and others can see that this is a slippery slope. Say for example you include a comparison table of all living former PMs' spending from 2013 to 2016—by selecting that time period, it already needs more context: perhaps PMs spend more in the first few years out of office, so it will look like Gillard is profligate, even though (hypothetically) Bob Hawke spent twice as much from 1991 to 1994. What are they spending it on? Office fitouts, staff, family travel? The detail matters and different people will have different circumstances so you can't just present a figure and a time period as you have done here. Even if you compare it to the others, we end up needing a never-ending stream of further context and detail to remain neutral. Do you see what I mean? --Canley (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your comments; you raise some relevant points. First, I do not suggest singling out Gillard: consistently with the suggestion that it is relevant material, I suggest it is relevant to all former prime ministers. Secondly, I think it could indeed be better to have a separate section comparing all PMs on the Australian Prime Minister page. That would at least address concerns about singling out people. As to the details, there is sufficient data that each item of spending can be identified in the table (the records list what each PM spent their entitlements on, including fit-outs, etc.). I do not think it is beyond the capacity of human ingenuity to present this information in a table which shows the information neutrally. Perhaps then, the best solution is to prepare a draft on the PM talk page which can be discussed there, and refined. Jane-526 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2017

Should be noted that she was recently awarded an AC. Some reference to this should be written into the article. Cheers, 110.20.207.12 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC) 110.20.207.12 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So as to clarify, a suggested wording would be 'Recently, on Australia Day in 2017, Julia Gillard was awarded the AC for recognition of her Prime Ministership and her commitment to expanding educational opportunities worldwide.'110.20.207.12 (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Gillard's AC has already been included in the article today as part of these changes. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm getting the feeling I'm coming back after a very very long absence. Anyhow, on the point of the AC in particular, I see that you have noted it but I was hoping for a more substantial (like a sentence or something) note that this has been awarded. 110.20.207.12 (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a short paragraph, but there is a paragraph on the award and reasons for the award. It's in the section of the article on her post-political career. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Misogyny speech section should reference Tony Abbott.. the speech was about him specifically

The sub-section Misogyny speech in Julia Gillard's main bio omits the fact that it was directed to Tony Abbott. The full Misogyny speech entry is summarized by the statement, "The Misogyny Speech was a parliamentary speech delivered by then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on 9 October 2012 in reaction to alleged sexism from opposition leader Tony Abbott.[1]" The sub-section in Gillard's bio should include this fact.

70.214.103.149 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

Request to change File:Julia Gillard 2010.jpg to File:JuliaGillard_-_2016.jpg OzPol (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

That photo is terrible. The current image is a professional-grade shot. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how but thanks anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by OzPol (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: per Nick-D. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

Edit should be made such that the first sentence of the first paragraph states that Julia Gillard is a "British-born Australian" and not simply "Australian". Wizkoo (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Already done The article's description of Ms. Gillard as an "Australian politician" is not based on her birth location, rather, it is based on where she served as a politician. Had she been involved in the politics of Wales, she would have been described as a "Welsh politician". As far as her location of birth, that would not be typically mentioned in the first sentence of the lead of BLP articles. In this case, the location of the subject's birth is mentioned in the 4th sentence of the lead.  spintendo  21:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Absence of Gillard's podcast

The post-politics section of this article should probably mention Gillard's podcast, 'A Podcast of One's Own' (2019 - present).

Info: "Each episode features with Julia in conversation with prominent female leaders from the worlds of entertainment, business, sport, activism and many more besides. The series aims to celebrate the stories of female leaders, learn lessons from their lives and share insights on what works to get more women into leadership positions." (from https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/podcast)

I would add this info myself but I am a new user and am not confirmed. FinnzBoyln (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

For goodness sake, please add it yourself. You appear to know what you're writing about: I've noty been to Oz for 30 years so don't. But if curmudgeonly established contributors (such as myself) are scaring off new contributors from contributing, then the wikipedia project is on its way to an early demise. That's not good. If what you add is "corrected" then you just learned something. Maybe it was something useful. Hope so. But one of the things that you should have learned already is that just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean that s/he was right and you were wrong. Wikipedia has carefully honed processes for dealing with such differences of opinion (though they do need a good deal of patience, so should probably be reserved for instances where (1) you feel strongly about something and / or (2) the other fellow(ess) is clearly barking mad).

Jump in. Contribute. And please. Success. Charles01 (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I would make the edit myself but the article has semi-protected status and so new editors can not change the article. FinnzBoyln (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Once your account is least four days old and has made at least ten edits to Wikipedia you'll be able to Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Change to Profile Picture

The current Wikipedia picture is outdated and inaccurately depicts Ms. Gillard, the low view is quite inadequate and it would be beneficial to have it changed. I will be seeking a consensus from the Talk Page as requested by the Wikipedia page. Dr.Editorias (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dr.Editorias: What free picture do you suggest we use as a replacement? —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the image found at File:Julia Gillard 2013.jpg would be a suitable alternative to the present image on Mrs Gillard Wikipedia page. Dr.Editorias (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps not, seeing as the image has been tagged for speedy deletion speedy deleted on Commons – you know you can't just composite an Australian flag on the background and claim it as your own work, right? This seems to be the 11th such image you have uploaded! --Canley (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

More on Baptist background?

I was wondering firstly if more on the Baptist background of Julia Gillard is warranted, such as the fact that she attended Mitcham Baptist Church and was a member of the Christian Youth Group, and secondly whether the attached source of a Baptist website would be considered a Reliable Source in Wikipedia terms. See: https://www.crossover.org.au/getting-used-to-our-prime-atheist/. Given the intersection of religion and politics, this may be relevant for this article, at the very least as a source. Regarding the reliability of the source, the fact that Gillard is now an atheist would suggest that the reporting is accurate, given there would be nothing to gain from the source inventing this information. What do other editors think? HistoryEditor3 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Julia has made it clear that as an adult she has not held religious beliefs. I see no validity in stating her church-going practices as a teenager. Dolphin (t) 23:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I also don't see how the Crossover link is a reliable source - it looks to be an opinion article, with some strange assertions (e.g. that it's not possible to be both religious and a supporter of EMILY's List and that Gillard was likely to campaign against religion as PM). Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that prompt feedback. Unless I find any more reliable source, and unless I receive further feedback from other editors to the effect that it might be useful to include this sort of detail, I won't include any information along these lines. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

Spelling correction: ‘INTRODCUED Gonski funding for Australian education’ to ‘INTRODUCED’ 82.43.169.249 (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you for taking the trouble to make that request. ~ cygnis insignis 13:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Julia Gillard official photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Again with the photo

I've restored the lead image, which was not supposed to be altered without consensus here. Somebody swapped it for what was described as the official portrait, but it wasn't a patch on the superb portrait we had and I have just restored. We aren't an arm of government. We don't have to have the official PM portrait; we can have whatever we want subject to licensing, and good images of prominent politicians are hard to come by. --Pete (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

“It wasn’t a patch on the superb portrait we had” is precisely just your opinion. We are not going to start reverting official Prime Ministerial portraits because one user decides he prefers an alternative that was perfectly acceptable so long as the official Prime Ministerial portrait wasn’t available here. The fact that this went months without anyone reverting says everything you need to know about the matter. Back off. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

We aren't an arm of government. The official photographs aren't as good as the ones we have. I think this one is a superb image of Julia looking steely and determined. You want to change the photos, get consensus. --Pete (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The long standing photo here is much better than the official portrait. I'm also highly sceptical about whether the CC claim on the image is accurate - the NAA's copyright pages are badly worded, but seems to say that not everything on its website is in fact CC. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with Pete and Nick-D. We have a better photo. --Bduke (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

We would be a laughingstock if we were to reject the official Prime Ministerial portraits when they are available for us to use - imagine somebody trying to remove the official portrait of any other world leader (such as American Presidents) for an unofficial headshot that somebody has a personal preference for. People would think it’s insanity! I really don’t have much more to say on this on top of what I have already said, but IMO it would be a serious mistake if we were to go ahead with this. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I will leave it to someone else to revert your edit reverting mine. In the meantime, please address - "I'm also highly sceptical about whether the CC claim on the image is accurate - the NAA's copyright pages are badly worded, but seems to say that not everything on its website is in fact CC." from Nick-D above. --Bduke (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox is the proper place for an official portrait - pending resolution of the copyright issue. We are fortunate here in having two very good images to choose from, and while I do like the non-official one, a formally posed portrait will always be better suited to an infobox. Frickeg (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

On the copyright point, the photos have been on the Wiki for some time now (I had nothing to do with their uploads) and until now nobody seemed to find issue with the copyright. If the photos are reported on copyright grounds, found to be uploaded on the basis of a false copyright claim and consequently removed, then I have zero objections to reverting back to the 2010 election photos. But until then, I don’t think it should be a factor when it comes to its use in these articles - the official photograph of Lindsay Thompson (uploaded by a user named Theotherscrubbythug, who has nothing to do with me and who never got my permission to use a username that is obviously near-identical to mine) for example has been reported and has been nominated for deletion, but is still in place as of now. Thescrubbythug (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You are actually responsible for the copyright status of images you add to articles, so that is not a response to my concern. More broadly, I think that the official portrait is an inferior photo to the image that has enjoyed consensus support as the infobox image for quite a few years - it's much crisper and more less stilted. There is no requirement for Wikipedia to make use of official portraits, and it could be argued that doing so would violate WP:NPOV given that such portraits depict the subject as they (or their PR people) want to be seen rather than what they necessarily look like. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be a very radical reading of WP:NPOV indeed. But clearly the images need to stay as was pending resolution of their copyright status, at which point their merits can be properly discussed. No point having the discussion if one of the images is not usable. Frickeg (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There have been quite a few discussions of this as part of WP:FPC nominations, where it's often held that a high quality non-official photo has stronger encyclopedic value than a high quality official photo. They tend to be more interesting photos, for instance, which I think is the case here. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

We as an encyclopaedia are not any sort of "official" arm of government or anything else. I'm not sure that we can actually use government photographs for commercial purposes, but the fact is that good quality portraits of politicians and celebrities with an appropriate license are extremely rare, and this one is excellent in quality and as a portrait of the human being. The fact that she was also PM for a couple of years doesn't mean that he have to use a photograph of dubious copyright status to illustrate her life. We aren't the official bloody history. --Pete (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Frickeg (especially on the radical NPOV interpretation) and disagree in general that the official photos are inferior, especially in terms of the quality itself. While Wikipedia does not have an official policy on the use of official portraits for main article infoboxes (when they are available to us), it is a de facto custom that's widely implemented, as can be seen if you look through articles on US Presidents or UK Prime Ministers (or even current members of Congress/UK Parliament, as permitted by their respective copyright laws). If there are genuine concerns about the copyright status of the official Gillard and Abbott portraits, they should be reported to WikiCommons rather than being unceremoniously discarded and left in limbo. Because if as I said they are found to be uploaded on the basis of a false and/or misinterpreted copyright claim, then they would rightly be deleted from WikiCommons entirely; and if they are found to be without issue, then they can be retained. Frankly, until then I don't think it's a strong enough core argument to justify removing/reverting from the official photos, especially since as I said they had been in place for nearly half a year and no user had objected until Skyring came along and reverted on the basis of a consensus that was made long before the official photographs were uploaded to WikiCommons. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

So your position is that you can upload whatever image you like regardless of coyright status and keep it until somebody points out your crime? A quick look around world leaders shows that official portraits are not the norm on Wikipedia. Jacinda Ardern is a case in point. --Pete (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

In Ardern’s case I’m fairly certain Wikipedia doesn’t have access to an official PM portrait. And once again, “If there are genuine concerns about the copyright status of the official Gillard and Abbott portraits, they should be reported to WikiCommons rather than being unceremoniously discarded and left in limbo”. Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. If we can't use an image it should not be used. Legitimate concerns about copyright status need to be investigated, but until we get an all-clear we can do without. An image can always be re-included when the status is clear and they aren't generally removed from Commons without good reason and warning. You've been participating in PM image discussions for a few years now. You know better. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have now reported the respective images of Gillard [[4]] and Abbott [[5]], and requested for an investigation. I invite you two to contribute @Skyring: @Nick-D:. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A glance at the source page's copyright information shows that official portraits are covered by a noncommercial licence which is unsuitable for Wikipedia use. Kindly remove all such images. --Pete (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A glance at your Wikimedia talk page shows a long and woeful history of getting copyright wrong. You seem to take the "suck it and see" approach and on that point I note that you have repeatedly failed to address the matter of you ignoring instructions to gain consensus before changing PM images. --Pete (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for bringing up outdated examples that nearly all date from mid-2018 when I first began to upload images, and at latest date from January 2019 (in a case where I mistook the fact that the 50 year rule for public domain government images only applies once the fiftieth year is over - in that particular case, an image from October 1969 that would have entered the public domain in January 2020) in an attempt to discredit me. Real petty, low blow on your part, eh? I’m no longer going to dignify you with any further responses, and this discussion should be dropped until the copyright issue for the official Gillard and Abbott portraits uploaded by Lee Gok Da is resolved by WikiCommons. Thescrubbythug (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

For this article, we're only talking about the official portrait you are so keen on and which turns out to have a non-commercial license which we cannot use. These facts are not in dispute. Kindly adhere to policy and stop trying to publish a copyright image. --Pete (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

In case you haven’t noticed, I had already stopped attempting to revert or “publish” the images, and have agreed to keep the status quo until the copyright issue is resolved by WikiCommons. So you can drop your sanctimonious, condescending attitude towards me, and stop responding to this thread like I intend to. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Clearly your mind is bent on publishing official images which we cannot use because the license is inadequate. It doesn't need anyone else to point this out - what do you want, a public vote? - because the APH site specifies a non-commercial licence for their material and all the other government sites note that external material is subject to the external license. We can't use images with a CC non-commercial licence. You can see all this for yourself. --Pete (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

What did I just say? “I had already stopped attempting to revert or “publish” the images, and have agreed to keep the status quo until the copyright issue is resolved by WikiCommons. So you can drop your sanctimonious, condescending attitude towards me, and stop responding to this thread like I intend to”. Frankly, it’s hard as well to interpret your attempt to bring up examples of image upload mistakes I made four years ago (when I was starting out) after I already agreed to maintain the status quo and had already stopped pushing for bringing back the official photos until then, as anything other than a personal attack designed to discredit me. If there’s anyone that needs to fully back off now and end a discussion that for all intents and purposes has already ended, it should be you. I will gladly do the same as well. But until then, STOP RESPONDING. Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me have the last word in this discussion. Let's be happy neither images was of Bert or Ernie, which I'm certain that we all can agree on, would've been changed :) GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Centralised discussion on portraits

I've kicked off a centralised discussion here. This topic should have more visibility and wider input so we can work out a uniform policy rather than having the same debate over and over. --Pete (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is the infobox photo not her official portrait?

Why isn't it this? It's used in Gillard Government why can't it be used here? Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Julia Gillard official photo.jpg

Official photo

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

220.244.177.137 (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo poo

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 06:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

The Education section should mention her $2.8 billion cut to Universities

I distinctly remember people being quite angry about this at the time and it's strange that the article doesn't mention it at all right now.

The timeline of events as far as I can tell is that Julia Gillard announced the $2.8 billion cut in April 2013 as part of the Gonski program. Universities and Uni students naturally criticised by the cuts. This policy was taken to the 2013 election which the ALP lost in September, after the election Gillard left politics. Then the ALP reversed it's position on these cuts in December when the Abbott government tried to introduce the promised cuts. Jukrab (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"often"

The final sentence in the intro is: "Political experts often place her in the middle-to-upper tier of Australian prime ministers."

The word "often" should be removed as, in the only cited source, it was a single poll of political experts. --Trp11234 (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 1234rach1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

In this sentence:

She is the first and only female prime minister in Australian history.

Please remove "first and", since if you're the only, you're obviously the first too. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 08:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Separation

Tim and her separated in early 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.173.225 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia content must be supported by reliable sources. Do you have one for this information? HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I've added this with a supporting reference Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)