Talk:Julia Gillard/Archive 3

Partner
'Noticed that Tony Abbott's page features his spouse, yet this one doesn't -- So someone should add it (I can't remember his name, and writing "some hairdresser" seems silly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.205.52 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As Julia Gillard is not married, or engaged, her marital status is single.If wikipedia wishes to devolve into charting the relationships of single people it would need another million gig to cover Hollywood, let alone political figures.Does she live with her "partner" ? No.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Early in the coverage of this relationship, the media talked about him being at her place to do her hair at 5.30am or even 4.30am. Either it's a very close relationship, or he gets up very early and drives over. I'm backing the former. The most sensible guide we have is that both parties seem happy with the media using terms meaning a long term relationship. (Longer than quite a few marriages I've known of.) Let's not try to impose old meanings and values on them. Spouse is fine in the modern Australian context. HiLo48 (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He is now correctly described in the infobox as her domestic partner. Jim Michael (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead MkII
I've re-jigged the lead again, mainly the removal of the early life bit which isn't of such top importance that it requires lead space. Timeshift (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also removed very questionable wording. Changes here. The lead is now just that, it outlines the subject. Timeshift (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- Lear's Fool 01:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, definite improvement. Well done TS9. --Surturz (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's great, apart from after Kevin Rudd stood aside I don't believe it fully reflects the nature of her coming to power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.91.227 (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The nature"? What precisely do you describe is "the nature" of her coming to power, using WP:RS? Timeshift (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added "lost the support of his party". Timeshift (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, the bit about Kevin Rudd standing aside does not properly reflect that he did that after she announced a challenge for the Labor leadership (even with "after he lost support of his party" it seems misleading by omission.) It's lastingly significant that she challenged him for the leadership, and then he stepped aside for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.10.134 (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Religion should state "none"
I know that current consensus is to avoid the "religion" field in the Infobox altogether, and although I certainly acknowledge that atheism is not a religion, I think it would be appropriate to add "none" to the field. This is a very relevant piece of information about Gillard, obviously. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 10:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That you think it is "obviously" relevant highlights the POV dangers in YOU wanting this information there. It has been quite common in Australia's history for non-religious people to lead the country, along with, I suspect, several who made a pretence of religion in order to attempt to gain votes. It is not an important aspect of most Australians' personas. My impression is that most of those who want the "none" or "atheist" there want it there for political point scoring purposes. I feel very uncomfortable about it being there. Just because such an option exists in the infobox template should not force us to use it. Templates should not rule the world. Back to you. Why is it "very relevant"? HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with CrazyInSane that it is "very relevant" - but I can see a tentative rationale for inclusion of "none". Simply because she has talked about these issues; in my mind that makes it notable (I agree the fact she is leading the country and non-religious is not a particularly notable combination). Religion is, as usual, always going to be a contentious issue - but I think the article has nailed it pretty solidly based on her own discussions of her feeling. Or, in shorter form, it is somewhat notable that she has claimed no religion --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * HiLo48: Me saying that it is "obviously relevant" is not POV-pushing whatsoever. Perhaps it may not be not as relevant as I implied, but that doesn't mean that I'm POV-pushing. I believe it is relevant because it is a notable fact and has been often cited in the media. In fact, my question to you would be, why do you feel "uncomfortable" about it being there, and why should Wikipedia care about your uncomfortableness? It is a fact, it is noted in plenty of news sources relating to Gillard, and Wikipedia is not censored. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not notable because most Australians don't care. Those who do care tend to be at the extreme end of religious views. They rarely seem to understand the possible complexities of such positions, and only want it there as a negative about Gillard. THAT'S where POV comes in. We should no pander to those on the extremes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I think you need to step back from this page. Notability is not based on a care factor and it doesn't matter if you think religion is a minor factor in Australian political life. Your demand that a religious statement be forever be stricken from the infobox seems a little extreme. Bilby's contention that there is something dangerous or risky about claiming Gillard is an atheist is nonsense.  If it mattered Gillard would of taken the opportunity on a discussion forum on national tv to correct the matter. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Red or white wine, straight or gay, left or right side of the bed, believe in God or not. They are all personal choices and they are nobody else's business. WWGB (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is valid reasoning for leaving it out. It is, rightly or wrongly, considered to be of public interest as to what religion if any a person subscribes. Nevertheless I'm happy to remove the opinionated religion slot altogether as is the status quo. Donama (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

She stated she doesn't have religion, so would adding "None" to that field be the same as leaving it blank? If so, it might as well be left blank? This little field has caused too much trouble. I recommend leaving it alone for now.  Davtra  (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Donama says "It is, rightly or wrongly, considered to be of public interest as to what religion if any a person subscribes." That's a pretty weaselish statement. My response to claims like that in articles is to ask "Considered by whom?". Again, I'll say that most Australians don't care. I've already stated my belief that those to whom it is of interest are religiously inclined people who only want it there because, to them, it is a negative statement about Gillard. That makes it deliberately point of view. I ask those who want it there to also say that they think it is a wonderful thing that Gillard is not religious. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not most Australians don't care is not a judgement we should be making, and it is irrelevant anyway. This is a biographical article, not a political one, so whether or not it should be included has nothing to do with the role it has played in her political life. There are a plethora of sources attesting to the fact that she says she is not religious, and as such (so long as we don't give it undue weight, and a small infobox mention certainly doesn't qualify as that) it should be mentioned.  There are genuine, biographical reasons for the inclusion of this fact, and they have nothing to do with the personal perspectives of those arguing for its addition.  -- Lear's Fool 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That most Australians don't care is totally relevant. It makes the fact non-notable. That some person, years ago, probably in another country, put the option in a template, does not make it compulsory that we use it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, sorry for making a weaselish statement, but if you ask anyone on the street I think you'll hear it echoed. I think Australians do actually care, anyway. For me personally I want to know that my PM is not going to be affected by typical religious sentiment (eg. will she suddenly start trying to make everyone say the Lord's prayer before anything; will she start making abortion more difficult; will she make life generally more difficult for gay people) so that's how it's relevant, especially to know about someone like Tony Abbot! Still, I agree with getting rid of the infobox religion slot because it can be quite a misleading system of pigeonholing. It makes the statement of atheist a negative one (i.e. "None") rather than a positive one. Donama (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking of the possibility of an infobox option called Chronic diseases. Then None would be a positive! HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought this discussion already took place and was closed. I agree with the previous conclusion that there is no need for the religion field in the infobox as is not relevant to what makes her notable, which is her political career. While some will argue that it has some relevance, it certainly doesn't to the extent that it would need to be in the infobox, which is supposed to provide a quick summary. --Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's "not relevant to what makes her notable"??? How absurd! She has made newspaper articles across the globe for being one of the most prominent atheists in high office. Regardless, if this is allegedly not relevant, then be sure to demonstrate your consistency and remove the Religion note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd, as well. Oh, and then explain how her signature "makes her notable." I'm pretty sure newspaper articles around the world haven't been written about her signature.--Carbonator (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Gillard's lack of religion will probably be notable to three groups of people, very conservative Christian Australian who want to condemn her for not proclaiming herself to be a Christian, enthusiastic atheist Australians who want to claim her for their side, and people from countries like the US where it seems that politicians simply have to appear to be connected strongly to a Christian church simply to succeed. I submit again that most Australians simply don't care. (Realistically, I reckon that reflects the true religious position of most Australians, but that's getting a bit off topic.) Given that the first two groups I mentioned would want the religion bit highlighted for quite POV reasons, and one could probably say the same about the third group, it is a problematic addition.


 * I agree with you completely that the signature is not notable. It appeared one day among a rash of somewhat more controversial activity and just seems to have stayed. You're the first to challenge it. Shall we remove it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, like any other image it is informative and breaks up the text. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To whom is it informative, and how? HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent question, HiLo. How is a signature "informative" while noting the PM's stance on religion is NOT informative??  The mind boggles.  And why do we need to "break up the text"?--Carbonator (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"I submit again that most Australians simply don't care." Is this Austrapedia? No, this is an international resource. Her stance on religion made international news. That, by definition, makes it "notable". I also see that you ignored my point about consistency: Namely, if you remove the Religion section from Gillard's article, be sure to do the same with Rudd's article.--Carbonator (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want to make this Aussie-centric. But how (un)important it is to Australians IS relevant. As I said, I imagine that it is important to people in countries where declaring oneself to be strongly connected with a church seems to be an essential attribute for getting elected. I'm just not sure how to get over the fact that it is used as a weapon in elections, and hence POV. Gillard has made the point that her position is an honest one, and she doesn't want to display any pretence of religion, implying that she believes that other politicians have done just that. I think that's a very important aspect of her position on religion, but ti's impossible to summarise in one or two words in an infobox. The real problem is the demand for such a brief description in the info box. As for Rudd, it was his declared position, but I don't know how sincere he was/is. Again, my concern is with the one word answer. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Carbonator asserts that "Her stance on religion made international news. That, by definition, makes it "notable"." Since the size of her ear lobes also made international news, perhaps we should include those in the infobox too? WWGB (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there were an "Earlobe size" field, then your response would indeed be relevant. Alas, no such field exists, which indicates a lack of interest by the readers for such information. However, there are thousands of entries with a "Religion" field, indicating great interest. Why censor such information?--Carbonator (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My question would be: why censor it? Kevin Rudd "Religion Anglicanism", John Howard "Religion Anglican", Paul Keating "Religion Roman Catholic". Precedent is already set. "None" would be less contentious. Atheist would be more accurate. @HiLo48 Do you not think there could be a political motive behind those that want to keep this under wraps as well?--Anthonzi (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, atheist wouldn't be more accurate. Atheism isn't a religion and therefore can't be listed under "Religion."  She has no religion, thus the correct answer is "None."--Carbonator (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing is being censored or kept under wraps. There are plenty of words in the article about her position on religion. The problem comes when editors try to draw their own conclusions to put a simple and simplistic one word entry in the infobox. It doesn't help anyone understand Gillard's true position on religion. To be honest, I doubt if the simplistic entries for other PMs tell us much either. They cannot possibly describe anyone's true position. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course something is being censored. It's a personal characteristic that appears in most encyclopedias --- including Wikipedia --- but strangely not here, for this one person. Suddenly there's a concern for "simplistic entries," a concern not expressed with the Kevin Rudd article or countless of other articles.  Quoting: "There are plenty of words in the article about her position on religion."  Using that logic, we should remove the Religion indicator ("Catholic") from the Mother Teresa article.  After all, "there are plenty of words in the article about her position on religion."  To be consistent, we either provide it (when the info is available) or we don't provide it.  The "Well, it's not notable for this one particular person" and "That category suddenly doesn't help us understand" arguments are not persuasive.--Carbonator (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please what I posted more carefully. I did exactly what you claimed I hadn't done. I questioned the use of simplistic entries for other PMs as well. The Mother Teresa example is irrelevant. Her religion was clearly part of her persona. That's not the same for pollies. I personally believe that for many it's simply a facade, a pretence, to convince conservative voters that they are nice religious people, when their behaviour actually suggests otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So HiLo thinks all politicians are liars when it comes to religion -- putting on a pretence that they are "nice religious people" --- therefore we'll counter their alleged deceit by mentioning their position on religion only in the article proper but NOT in the summary box. Yes, that'll show 'em!  Oy.  Hey, here's a better idea.  Instead of censoring information based on your cynicism (OPINION), it makes much more sense to provide FACTS that are backed up by multiple sources.  Btw, what do politicians' alleged ploys to show "they are nice religious people" have to do with Julia Gillard???  She's admitted she's not religious.  I really doubt she'll "convince conservative voters" with that admission!  Finally, yes, of course the Mother Teresa example is relevant.  You said mentioning Gillard's position on religion in the box was unncessary because "There are plenty of words in the article about her position on religion."  Well, BY THE SAME TOKEN, there are plenty of words in Mother Teresa's article about her position on religion.  Sorry if you don't like your inconsistency revealed. --Carbonator (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From Carbonator - So, HiLo thinks all politicians are liars when it comes to religion. No. Misrepresentation is never a helpful approach to Discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice try. It wasn't a misrepresentation. It was based directly on your prior statement. Nice attempt to avoid answering the substance of my response, which demonstrated the silliness and inconsistency of your "logic."--Carbonator (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's either a misrepresentation, or stupidity or illiteracy on your part. I said "some". You said that I had said "all". You are looking silly. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "That's not the same for pollies." You didn't say, "That's not the same for some pollies."  Why are you lying?  Regardless, instead of censoring information based on YOUR opinion about alleged deceit, it makes much more sense to provide FACTS that are backed up by multiple sources. .--Carbonator (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with your final fifteen words. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't fill in "Religion" in the infobox for the same reason we don't fill in "Death Place". She has neither. WWGB (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice try. There are many individuals who have no "Religion" field (YET). So they're all atheists?  Please. Not having a "Religion" field simply means that it hasn't been filled out yet. Placing "None" in the Religion field provides information to the reader.  That's better than not providing information.--Carbonator (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with a detailed description of what someone has said about their religious status. It generally isn't "None" and generally won't fit in the Infobox. One-worders don't really help. To say "None" is, in fact WP:SYNTHESIS. You are deciding that a number of words used by the subject can be interpreted as one. Not acceptable here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 tells us: "One-worders don't really help." Wow, now you're just being stupid.  The one word "Catholic" is, of course, helpful.  So is the one word "Jewish."  You are deciding that one word isn't helpful.  Not acceptable here.  Anyway, I'm so happy you've given up on the silly claim that the absence of a "Religion" field means the person is nonreligious.  That was embarrassing.--Carbonator (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks - Too recent, too current
user:ErrantX has just made a minor reduction to the Wikileaks subsection with an Edit summary of "hardly seems relevant detail". I see the whole subsection as being problematic. It seems a classic example of Recentism. The section headed Political positions only contains six other subsections. To suggest that Gillard's position on Wikileaks is one of her seven most important political issues is just silly. I would suggest that the whole subsection should go. HiLo48 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, yes, my first inclination was to kill most of the section. I'm still debating removing the "open letter" as probable soapboxing. But the rest does not seem to have gathered overly significant coverage; I'd be looking for something a little more in-depth than "she said X". (It might be worth a sentence elsewhere, I haven't looked into that) --Errant $(chat!)$ 10:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks/Assange
Please demonstrate via a RS that the detail "with some calling for the founder Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, to be killed" is of significance to Gillard's biography and comments, and not just point pushing. --Errant $(chat!)$ 10:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think these last two sections overlap somewhat. I'm happy if all discussion continues here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Australian spelling
Do we use it? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What else? Welsh, maybe?  :) --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro nunciate
Should we have a page regarding her lingo speach? It made a huge appearance when she was running / election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.18.25 (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, find a reliable source that discusses it in a sensible way, and go for it. If no such source exists, take your original research elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh course we should! Plenty of articles over on the internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.14.161 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Carbon Tax
I think to be fair and impartial that it should me mentioned in the article in the section about the carbon tax that Julia Gillard told Channel 10 news "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,". I have noted that the majority of editors on this page are Labor and Gillard supporters but I think that a lie by the Prime Minister of Australia should be noted144.136.101.108 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the current state of the lead, adding that would be an obvious case of undue weight and recentism, to say nothing of the effect it would have on the neutrality of the lead. -- Lear's Fool 12:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care who you think I support politically, but given that you are quoting Tony Abbott with that approach, your position is obvious, and not helpful. I will just comment that there is a big difference between a lie and a, sadly, all too common, broken promise from a politician. It's part of the game for almost all players. If we listed every broken promise by every politician we would have no time for anything else. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not mention Tony Abbott. Does that mean I can remove the quote 'never ever' from John Howard's page? Plainly this was a lie not a broken promise. You are now showing your bias. Again.144.136.101.108 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction matters - a lie would be more along the lines of "I have no plans to announce a carbon tax" if it can be shown that she did have plans to introduce one (although I would imagine that she had no such plans). What she did was promise that she wouldn't introduce a carbon tax, and then went back on the promise. An analogy is that I wouldn't be lying if I said I was going to be home on time tonight, but if I was then unexpectedly held up. I would be lying if I said that I was late because I was busy in the library, when the real reason I was because I went to the pub. Otherwise I generally agree that it shouldn't yet be mentioned in the lead, unless this comes to define her time as PM - which seems unlikely at this stage, but may prove to be the case.- Bilby (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * By all means include Julia Gillard's pre-election statements about a carbon tax/price, but please resist the urge to label them a "lie" or a "broken promise" in the article, or to quote the Leader of the Opposition or media doing so. I don't think any one objects to including referenced quotes or factual statements—despite your apparent assertions of pro-Labor bias amongst editors here. In the example you give, John Howard's "never ever" GST statement, the article merely states "Howard said that he considered the Coalition's defeat in 1993 to be a rejection of the GST, and as a result it would "never ever" be part of Coalition policy."—it doesn't say its a lie, or a broken/"non-core" promise, or even try to hypothesise an effect on opinion polls or elections. It mentions the quote, and what happens afterwards, all properly referenced, and readers can draw their own conclusions. --Canley (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree Canley. What does everyone think about adding just her words and let people make up their own minds? I think this is important becasue the Newspoll has instantly gone down for Labor. This is likely a contributing factor.144.136.101.108 (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until a Carbon Tax in one form or another is actually legislated. She hasn't broken her election promise yet, just indicated that she intends to. Furthermore, she hasn't got good form in actually delivering anything. Until proven otherwise, let's assume her incompetence will overpower her dishonesty. In any case, the quote should appear in the body text only, not in the lead. --Surturz (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems controversial and presumptive at the moment to call the announced carbon pricing framework a "Carbon Tax". The link [97] just mentions a price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strewth11 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thegong21, 30 May 2011
Please add "Wikileaks" heading above the second paragraph below Internet in Positions section as Wikileaks is it's own separate issue

Thegong21 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done as having 1 paragraph per issues seems to fit better with the page layout and there are no guideline issues preventing it, though I feel it might be better if the preceding section was expanded a little, which I re-named 'Internet Controls' but not knowing the issues I am unaware of what the debate was referred to as.-- wintonian  talk  01:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Some humour gone wrong?
As an Aussie, I get the humour in and even LOL'd at "She has a broad Australian accent which is distinctive even among Australian prime ministers." But I have an issue with the sentence being in a Wikipedia article on the grounds that it is in fact not true. How many of our PMs really and truly had "broad Australian accents"? I would suggest that the answer is ... "not many". Old_Wombat (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the coup?
Just doing a bit of research on the bloodless coup that occured when Julia Gillard ejected the democratically elected Prime Minister of Australia. From what I can see, inside Australian media using the word 'coup' was avoided at all costs aside from ABC and SBS media outlets, however outside of Australia a spade was called a spade. Is this some kind of tabboo in Australian culture? If so, can this be justified with Wiki policies on the issue? Pmorphsab (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, it wasn't a 'coup'; it was a leadership challenge. And Prime Ministers aren't 'democratically elected' - they're selected by the members of parliament from the party with the most seats in the House of Representatives. Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Nick-D. Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a normal part of the Westminster system, and those outlets "outside of Australia" were possibly in the USA, where they never understand our parliamentary system. Prime Ministers aren't elected by the people. It wasn't a coup, or a spade. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Glen Milne story?
How do we mention this stuff, without violating WP:BLP? --Surturz (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this, and file the whole thing under corrupt, dishonest Murdoch/Milne/Bolt mass media manipulation. Maybe something could be added to the articles on those three gentle(?)men, but the story certainly isn't about Gillard. HiLo48 (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Gillard has confirmed many details of the story. --Surturz (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that? The challenge now is to find a TRULY reliable source. While the Fairfax press is condemning the behaviour of the Murdoch press over this, it's difficult to decide who really is reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing a change to WP:RS? What details has Gillard confirmed, do we know? Given some of the material coming out over the Sleazegate thing and her staunch defence of the primary character, she has opened herself up to legitimate criticism over links to misbehaving union leaders. Even so, my feeling is that Milne's story isn't particularly relevant, as even he does not suggest that Gillard had any knowledge of wrongdoing and she has since condemned and regretted the relationship. We should keep an eye on how this develops, but we have enough to go on with, just from well-sourced relevant criticism on a host of other things. No need to sink the boot too far in. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should anybody be sinking any boot in to any depth at all? Your position does not appear objective. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well put HiLo. Given that The Australian has retracted the opinion article, labeled the assertions it contained "untrue" and unreservedly apologised to both Gillard and the people who read the story, there seems to be nothing to add to this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This was a nothing story in 2007 (the Telegraph story linked in the first comment) and not much has changed. The only vaguely relevant part of this episode seems to be that Gillard had a relationship with this guy at some point. Hack (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is based on reliable sources, and they tend to show a level of criticism that is not reflected in our article. Milne's piece seems like a tadpole in a pond full of sharks. --Pete (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. This one's not dead. Looking at the ABC's report, it looks like The Australian may have been overhasty. The complaint is that Milne didn't contact Gillard for comment, not that he made any mistakes. What parts, I ask, of the story are untrue? More details are promised. My guess is that in the current union turmoil, someone has decided to leak a bit, which is why the 2007 story has been dusted off now. However, as published, Milne's article doesn't make any direct allegations about Gillard, apart from the fact that she was an unwitting patsy. --Pete (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If something is published we can consider including it in the article. Until then it's a story which the newspaper which published it labeled "untrue" and issued a comprehensive apology for (you may want to re-read The Australian's correction, as they separately stated that the claims were untrue as well as stating that Gillard hadn't been asked to comment on them before the article was printed, and the current version of the story on the ABC website here also makes it clear that The Australian still regards the claims as being untrue and that not contacting Gillard about the article was relatively unimportant). According to Crikey this stuff has been floating around since the 1990s, so it's not even new: Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the episode is "not new" is actually a reason to include the info, not to exclude it. --Surturz (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you read the same ABC article I did, and somehow missed the point. Read it again. The Australian, in their initial apology acknowledged untruth, but have moved away from that position. And what parts, precisely, are untrue? I think this one's got legs and we better think very carefully about how to react, given BLP limitations. It's turning into a big story, with Cabinet apparently declaring war. I again make the point that in the real world, Gillard is having a tough time everywhere, but in Wikiland, everything is fine and dandy, the sun is shining and Julia's on top of the world. How does it help people looking for useful information when instead they get a publicity release from her office? Nor do we want the Tony Abbott line - we want to provide a fair, balanced and accurate article, as per established Wikiness. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My belief is that the following elements of the story are not in dispute:
 * JG had a romantic relationship with Bruce Wilson
 * JG worked for the HSU's lawyers, Slater and Gordon
 * JG and Wilson set up an association
 * Wilson subsequently used that association to embezzle money from the HSU (or is accused of doing so, not sure if he was convicted)
 * The first two points are already in the article. The question here is whether the last two should be put in. JG has confirmed the latter two points in the 2007 "conman broke my heart" article in the Herald Sun. I don't think we need to mention the Phil Gude or Geoff Leigh accusations (they are her political opponents and therefore their account is compromised).
 * At this stage we should certainly not mention anything about her possibly receiving benefit from the alleged embezzlement, as per WP:BLP.
 * So, for this article, is it notable that:
 * Bruce Wilson was accused/convicted of embezzling HSU funds; and/or
 * JG helped Wilson set up the association that was the means of the fraud; and
 * if we do include the above, do we mention that JG denies any wrongdoing?
 * --Surturz (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that should be included. There's no suggestion that Gillard knew of any wrong doing, and it's hardly her fault if people she had a relationship with are alleged to have done bad things. It's relevant to articles on the people involved if they're notable, but it seems to be muck racking to include it here. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is the question of poor judgement, something which goes to the heart of her leadership. I'm getting a little weary of every fresh disaster apparently being the fault of some external party. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your OPINION of Gillard's judgement is exactly that, an opinion, and therefore of no value to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a remarkably widespread and notable opinion, judging by today's front page headlines. I predict that whenever the next Newspoll is published we can add a bit to the article about Julia being Australia's most unpopular Prime Minister ever. I'm sorry that it has turned out this way, but there's no point in pretending that everything's going well, now is there? That would just be an opinion, and a remarkably risible one, the sort you'd expect from one-eyed fanatics or Cabinet ministers. --Pete (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your predictions are irrelevant too. You asked me earlier in this thread if I was proposing changes to WP:RS. Given the garbage source that started this thread, I strongly recommend that you stop using the Daily Telegraph as a source. Their credibility on this stuff is shot. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete, I very rarely cite WP:NOTNEWS as I think Wikipedia has an important role to play in aggregating and disseminating up-to-date factual news content. However, I do find it refreshing that many editors try to steer clear of the "politics as sport" style of reporting where every perceived "disaster", or poor opinion poll is breathlessly hammered out in the news. I'm sure I've said this before when similar claims of "whitewashing" Labor MPs' articles came up—if the event or circumstance has an actual effect or is widely considered to have had an effect, I agree it should be mentioned. If Craig Thomson resigned and the government lost its majority, that should be mentioned as a factor. If Julia Gillard had resigned over this so-called "scandal"—and in no way is it a "disaster" for anyone except Glenn Milne and maybe Andrew Bolt—of course it would be noted. If Labor rolls Gillard after she gets the worst Newspoll ever, etc... But to hyperbolically chronicle every slip-up, every gaffe, every back-flip or broken promise, every MP involved in any hint of scandal, every bad poll, every Opposition claim that this is the worst government in the history of ever... it's just speculation. If we stick to the cold, hard facts and report events and reasons for all articles for pollies of all parties, it's not "bias" and "opinion" to omit trivial negative coverage. An example: the Tony Abbott article contains no mention of the Mark Riley "shit happens" gotcha and nor should it (I'm sure it did at some stage, but this is exactly the sort of thing which shouldn't appear in Abbott's or Gillard's or Bob Brown's articles). All that said, I think the High Court overruling the "Malaysia Solution" is a disaster for Labor, and probably should be mentioned in this and several other articles.--Canley (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't want to sound like the Telegraph, nor a hotline from Tony Abbott's office, but the reality is that Gillard's government has been a disaster unseen since the early Seventies. The polls reflect this. I've mentioned something like this before with the Rudd article, which gave no hint that he was in trouble at the time of the ALP dumping him. Reading our article, he was doing a fine and successful job. Gillard's article is equally glowing now, but when Labor insiders such as Richo are openly sinking the boot in, she's in big trouble. Why are we pitching political pap to our readers, who presumably want truth and objectivity? --Pete (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't speculate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in your response to the point above. Clearly our article is misleading our readers into believing that Gillard is having a wonderful, productive time as Australia's first Prime Minister. I sincerely wish that this had been so, but this is not the case. She's in severe trouble. --Pete (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't commentate either. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution. Anybody else see a way forward? We want to be accurate, but we don't want to turn the article into a battleground for those who see Gillard as a goddess, pure and without sin. --Pete (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that view is motivating my posts here, you completely fail to understand both my position and Wikipedia's policies. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Think what you may. I'm confident of Wikipolicy. If you can't address the point, please don't stuff around or make personal attacks. --Pete (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would only be a personal attack (and hardly even that) if you DO think that I "see Gillard as a goddess, pure and without sin." I have addressed your points. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon my hyperbole, and thanks again for your humour. --Pete (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pete/Skyring, I have to say... you pop up regularly on various talk pages making accusations of "bias" and "whitewashing", but not once do I remember seeing you actually suggesting any prose which addresses your concerns (perhaps you have, please feel free to point me in the right direction), rather than accusing other editors of bias. Are you actually making edits to the articles which are being reverted by these so-called biased editors (once again, some diffs please)? Have you addressed similar concerns about bias and whitewashing (or the converse, "speculation" and "controversy") on articles other than Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard? I'd be really interested to see what you have in mind, how you would address this supposed bias and express (within policy) the negative coverage of the Rudd/Labor government which is apparently being censored by party apparatchiks—I'd be happy to help you write it, review it, find references, etc. as I completely agree that articles should not be hagiographies on any side of politics. --Canley (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The proof is in the pudding, as I've laid out several times, and the first step is acceptance. Would you say that the Rudd article gives a reader any understanding of why he was dumped and why he is now so detested by his colleagues? Or does the Gillard article explain how she had led the ALP to such depths in the polls and why she is in such a pickle? She is the target of severe criticism from many quarters, not least her own party. Even the ABC, noted bastion of right-wing politics that it is, has barely a kind word for her nowadays. Why is it that our articles are so at odds with reality? --Pete (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The proof is in the pudding"? Seriously? I'm not asking for proof, or disagreeing with you, that the articles in question may have a political slant or omit details which would give a fuller picture of the subject—I'm asking for proof that you've done anything to redress this imbalance: made edits, suggested actual text on the talk pages, asked admins to help if your edits are being unfairly reverted. Anything other than stirring the pot and impugning the neutrality of the articles and the motives of fellow editors? You seem happy to quote policies and assure us that you only have the best interests of the project at heart, but to use the pudding analogy, have you ever actually cooked a pudding or helped to cook one at all, or are you just taking a bite and complaining it tastes too bland, or scribbling notes to that effect in the margins of the recipe? This is Wikipedia—you say the first step is acceptance, the first step is to just do it—edit the articles or suggest some text with references please, don't expect others to write articles for you, especially when other people (and I am one of them) may not see the same problem as you (maybe it's because of bias or political leanings, but I don't think anyone here would reject reasonable verifiable referenced text). --Canley (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard what you said the first time, and you saw my response. You don't need to repeat yourself louder and more forcefully. My answer stands, and I urge you to consider what I said. I do actually expect others to write articles for me - if I ever develop an interest in some esoteric subject, Sanskrit perhaps, I know that I'll find a Wikipedia article on it, cross-linked to related topics, complete with diagrams and references. I don't have to do it all myself. What I'm doing here is reminding you and others of the simple truths of Wikipedia, and I urge you to look at some of the more basic pillars of the project. If I point out that the leaning tower is not level, does that mean I have to push it upright all by myself? Far better to get the people pushing manfully away on the other side to see the tilt, and then we will all be better off. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a competition.


 * Bias and opinion is a part of human life - if we all had the same views, then election time would see a remarkable uniformity of ballot papers - and Wikipedia's basic precepts allow for this. Acceptance, as I said, is the first step. Do you personally think our Julia Gillard article gives a fair and honest statement of her position and a useful explanation of her troubles for those who do not read the Australian newspapers and come to us for enlightenment? If you think it needs some work, then I suggest that you follow your own good-intentioned advice and fix it. If you think it is just fine, then say so - it may be that I am in error, which is a common enough occurrence, and I shall consider how to correct my perception. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be aggressive here, demanding you write or edit something you're not comfortable with, but I am getting frustrated, so apologies if that's how I've come across. I mean with all sincerity that I accept that you feel the articles are slanted through omission, and I truly would like to help. I can't say the articles are perfect, of course they're not. As you say, we all have biases, and perhaps subconsciously through omission or otherwise, we sometimes let those show in our writing. In my opinion, this article does adequately express the facts of what has actually happened without recourse to speculation about reasons, opinion of competence and other nebulous concepts such as a general feeling of unpopularity. I have written—started and contributed to—hundreds of articles on Australian politicians of all persuasions: Liberal to Labor, National to Green, Democrats and Independents. I like to think they're all as neutral as I and others can make them, and I think a lot of the WP:AUSPOL regulars would be the same. Personally, I think the ALP and Gillard have stuffed up hugely, policy-wise and in their handling of various crises such as Thomson. Yes, I think they are deeply unpopular and there is a stench of death around their electoral prospects. Yes, I think they are plumbing the depths of opinion poll hell and have a very slim chance of electoral success federally and in the states. But as myself and others have repeatedly stated: how do you express these abstract concepts such as unpopularity, incompetence, the "general feeling" in the cabinet/party room, in the media and in the public? Yes, the media does it—but for ratings or newspaper sales. As you say, the ABC does too, but I think this is a reflexive action to bias accusations, and I don't think Wikipedia should do the same. By all means, factual information is welcome: polls can be chronicled in Next Australian federal election, as are all election results ("the only poll that matters"), and if someone loses a position, office, or their seat of course that would be included—if the facts are there for those interested to peruse and draw their own conclusions, I don't think we should, or need to, wrap it up in a summary package of speculation and opinion especially in BLP articles. --Canley (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't speculate or opinionate. That's not what Wikipedia is about. But we should be telling the whole story, and we have ample good sources for the various setbacks experienced by Rudd and Gillard. I invite you to read through the Tony Abbott article and see if you can spot the difference in tone. It looks like every little setback, every little embarrassment - all scrupulously referenced, mind - is included. Personally, I think Tony and Julia are much the same in many ways - and if Rob Oakeshott had swung the other way, Tony would be looking at some disastrous polls right now IMHO - but our Wikipedia articles aren't being even handed. Our articles should not be attack pieces or whitewashes, but they should tell the truth, notable triumphs along with notable failures. I actually don't have too many problems with the Abbott article. It paints a good picture of the man and he comes across as more of a human being than Gillard does in her article, where all the humanity has been airbrushed out. --Pete (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing I would point out is there is a difference between triumphs and failures of the broader Gillard/Rudd Governments and those of Gillard or Rudd personally. The article Gillard Government does contain plenty of negative coverage of the government's policies and popularity, as it should. Maybe the reason there is more of this sort of commentary in the Tony Abbott biography article is because there has not been a corresponding Abbott Government article? It's very tempting to nail policy failures and electoral difficulties to the mast of the Prime Minister, who of course is ultimately responsible, but I think the government articles should be the place for mentioning those. Of course, it doesn't help when the Prime Ministers put themselves front and centre of every announcement, meeting and decision, but I guess that's part of the expectation of the media or even the public these days (it's probably always been like this)!


 * So, you'd agree that we need some guidelines on what is appropriate in biographical articles and what is better suited for articles on the government. I would argue the following would be OK (if scrupulously referenced) in bios: personal relationships and scandals, spoken "gaffes", "Preferred Prime Minister" ratings—however, as I've said before I would much prefer if these had a discernible effect on the subject's occupation or electoral position rather than just they "said this" or "did this". An example is Abbott's comments about Bernie Banton—they were widely reported at the time, but I doubt they had any effect on his political standing whatsoever. I would be tempted to remove this from the article. Have you got a reference that Gillard's personal approval rating (Newspoll) is the lowest in Prime Ministerial history, because if so I don't think that's inappropriate in the bio. Policy commentary or perceived failures (I'm thinking NBN, BER, Pink Batts, Malaysia Solution, etc), 2PP opinion polls on "if an election was held tomorrow", resignations or deaths of MPs which affect the balance of power... these would belong in the government article, and in the bio of the MPs involved (of course they would be mentioned in the PM's bio if they ceased to be PM for that reason).


 * Now, with this Glenn Milne opinion piece that started the discussion, I think we're in a bind in terms of verifiability and neutrality as the publisher (News Limited) has withdrawn and apologised for the article in question! So while Hartigan and Bolt can make all the grumbling noises they want about freedom of the press and Gillard overstepping the mark, it's likely News Limited's lawyers have advised them that the content was factually-flawed and possibly defamatory. All that's left is criticism of her personal "judgement" nearly 20 years ago by the likes of Bolt, and I think we should steer clear of this whole issue unless Gillard resigns in disgrace over it, rather than bringing up possibly untrue and defamatory facts and claims. It's a personal issue, so not out-of-place in a bio, but the whole topic is a minefield of dubious "facts" and fraught with legal danger. --Canley (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like these allegations are on hold for a bit. Nobody seems to be actually denying anything specific, which is interesting, but I agree with you on our approach. i.e. do nothing unless something more comes up. I don't think it's just gossip, looking at the stat dec, but nor is it anything provable. with a reliable source.
 * I've checked the polls on worst PM, but Julia's not quite there yet. There's a Newspoll coming out tomorrow and it's going to be a big dive for Gillard and the government.
 * There should be a separation between PM and government articles. The batts thing wasn't anything to do with Rudd much, for instance, but his handling of it went to his personality, and personality, judgement, character are key to a biographical article beyond the bald historical facts. For example, we know what Churchill and Hitler did in their lives, but their personalities are the interesting parts and the key to understanding their actions. We get a good feel for Tony Abbott, but not for Julia, and this is because anything that reflects poorly on her has either not been included or has been removed. I think the whole asylum-seeker issue goes to her personal style - she's announced any number of solutions and nothing has worked. That's not a government thing, that's her personal style, seeking to do a deal, much as she did with the mining tax and the carbon tax. I think we can probably start with the boat people thing and see how we go about getting a balanced approach that informs our readers. --Pete (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring - enough of the whinging and complaining. It's time to put up or shut up. EXACTLY what words do you want added to the article, and EXACTLY what sources do you plan to use? Actually, if you are so certain of your position, just make the edits, now. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you read the discussion above, please? --Pete (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not good enough. If you're not comfortable with writing or feel you don't know enough about the topics or subjects, or don't want to "name-and-shame" supposedly biased editors, that's fine, like I said I'm happy to help, but there are other avenues. Maybe you should raise an WP:RFC (Request for Comment)—I actually would really be interested to get a broader overview on this supposed systemic problem than just seeing one or two editors repeatedly popping up on the talk pages of Labor PM articles throwing around vague (and frankly, offensive) accusations of bias with no links to diffs or even suggested references, when I think most of us here are endeavouring to be neutral and rational. --Canley (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging by the evidence discussed above, there's a bias in our articles. Bias in editors is fine, as noted - the problem comes when the articles are biased. Surely that's obvious? --Pete (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not obvious at all—you have not posited any "evidence" whatsoever apart from vague assertions, suggestions to compare various articles, and links to clearly partisan opinion coverage. I realise you seem to be claiming it's bias by omission, so it's difficult to point to a particular area, paragraph or edit that is offending you, but you have to help us out here by being specific in your suggestions rather than criticising and expecting others to fix a problem no-one else seems to be able to see. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, then I'm sorry, we can't help. And believe me, I want to help and I think we've got the same goals for the project, but I'm at a loss as to what your point even is. --Canley (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Immigration rewrite
As flagged above, we need to look at the immigration/asylum seeker section, putting some more attention to getting the facts correct and uncovering how Julia Gillard personally made the disaster her own.

To begin with, her first major policy announcement on becoming PM was to ditch Rudd's population policy, saying she did not believe in a "big Australia". This was in June, not August as our article states, and it was aimed squarely at the marginal voters in Western Sydney who were also the target of her tough talking on stopping the boats. She underlined this by taking David Bradbury from Western Sydney on a patrol boat trip. In July 2010, as part of her "tough policy agenda to deter boatpeople.". Her election campaign was solid on this.

However, she got off to a rocky start by naming East Timor as a regional processing centre, a move which was almost immediately rejected. By East Timor. Our article looks pretty good on this.

The material about new detention centres we can ditch. It wasn't Gillard directing the builders, it was the department going about its normal business. However, we should note the numbers of boats and asylum seekers since she made her election pledge to put people smugglers out of business."

Likewise, I'm not really sure that the December 2010 boat wreck on Christmas Island needs to go here. It was a tragedy, but realistically Julia Gillard the person and the politician had nothing to do with it, apart from passively encouraging the people-smugglers by not having any workable deterrence policy in place. She shouldn't be held responsible for bad weather or bad luck. That's the province of a higher authority, and a different article.

Manus Island needs a mention. This turned out to be a reversal of her saying "We would not have offshore processing in Manus Island and Nauru," but in May 2011 it was revealed that negotiations has commenced with the PNG government over re-opening the facility.

The Malaysian deal para needs rejigging to emphasise that not only was it another about face for Julia, it failed spectacularly after she repeatedly promoted it as the big fix.

We'll see how things go on Nauru, but whether it's Nauru with Coalition support or onshore processing with the cheerful help of Bob Brown, either way is another reversal on Gillard's previous stance.

This section highlights Julia Gillard's approach to government. Not because the whole thing is an embarrassing failure, but because she has displayed a steady lack of judgement in making big announcements on immigration that have turned out to be expedient fixes rather than practical solutions. She is responsible for a big increase - from 53% to 78% - of voters seeing ALP handling of asylum seekers as bad. There is a wealth of excellent sources here, but perhaps the most startling - and telling - aspect is the criticism from past Labor figures such as Graham Richardson and Philip Adams, specifically identifying the asylum-seeker debacle as a reason for Gillard to go. This all goes directly to Gillard's leadership, character and personality. --Pete (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, Pete, that's what's needed and you raise some really good points with references. I am writing an article on the Malaysia Solution which covers a lot of the same items and topics you have mentioned above. Just a couple of comments:
 * the mention of an East Timor processing centre, I agree, this was raised by Gillard in a speech to the Lowy Institute and seems to be based on somewhat informal personal discussions with Ramos-Horta
 * the Big Australia speech, and taking the Member for Lindsay on a patrol boat off Darwin, were also issues which Gillard seems to have personally raised or been involved with, I agree it could be mentioned here
 * I agree, the Christmas Island tragedy and building new detention centres are a bit of a stretch to include in a personal bio
 * My understanding was that PNG was being discussed and negotiated as a regional processing location earlier than May, at the Bali conference in March. I could be wrong on this. Also, technically, Manus Island was ruled out in Gillard's statement, but a centre could be based elsewhere in PNG. Of course it makes sense to have it on Manus as the facilities are there. Sorry, it's kind of like quibbling over the difference between a "carbon tax" and a "carbon price" isn't it, as I presume the statement was intended to reject the Pacific Solution in principle, not in the detail!
 * And the rest I'm, not really comfortable with, seems like opinion from figures who are not necessarily impartial: I suppose it's OK to quote critics if you name them and show what they said in context, and it is clear they blame Gillard personally for the party's misfortunes. Similarly with these issues of backflips and reversals of stance, as stated above, maybe list what she said in a speech or media interview, then the reality of what happened - as you said we'll have to wait until actual legislation is introduced or policy implemented for some of these things - and let readers draw conclusions.

--Canley (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify something. What would make me really happy is for Julia's approval rating to jump up to somewhere around 75%, because it would mean that she was doing a good job, the country was running well, people felt secure and optimistic etc. I've spent my fifty plus years under various governments and I preferred Bob Hawke to Billy McMahon, Malcom Fraser to Paul Keating and so on. I think that if the ALP had stuck with Kim Beazley, they would have beaten Howard in 2007, and Kimbo would be comfortable in the position, running the show well, getting on with the job. I don't feel any particular loyalty to any party and if the guy I voted for didn't get up, I don't feel it's a personal affront. Mostly I vote for independents or minors anyway.
 * The politicians I don't like are ideologues, extremists, corrupt, dishonest or incompetent. People who put themselves or their party above the good of the community. I'm happy to give everyone a chance, and I was really pleased to see Julia get up, because she seemed to have a handle on things, to be an inspiration for women, to be a breath of fresh air after Rudd's inability to do anything but make speeches and issue press releases. But she's been a disappointment, and I feel that presenting her as a success in Wikipedia is being dishonest. I can understand why people who have a devotion to a political party or an ideology just as they might support a football team or faith or nation in a one-eyed manner would feel bound to present their party/team/faith in the best possible fashion, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. --Pete (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Too much of your opinion. Concentrate on creating a better article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for your good-intentioned advice. I'm hoping we can all work together to do just that. After all, that's exactly why all we're here, isn't it? --Pete (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reference to the Christmas Island tragedy doesn't belong. If it were to include references to the people (such as those in the opposition) who blamed it on Gillard's policies it could possibly stay, but right now it's just randomly thrown in there by itself. It does, as you said, almost give off the impression that it was directly the fault of Gillard. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just a jump to the left... and a lurch to the right...
See. The night before he got ousted, Rudd said he could not countenance a "lurch to the right" on asylum seekers. I think it would be worth including this quote as a key difference between Rudd and Gillard. Some mention of the end of the Pacific Solution and the corresponding increase in boat arrivals would be good to for context. --Surturz (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Rudd may have used the word, I have great difficulty in applying words like left and right to asylum seeker policy. It would need to be very well explained. And similarly, good luck with trying to create something objective about "the Pacific Solution and the corresponding increase in boat arrivals". There is massive disagreement about how much they "correspond". HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Julia is firmly in the "Pacific Solution worked" camp, rather than the "Lull in refugee movements" theory. Pull vs Push, if you will. --Pete (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Me. Responding to You. She's been busting her arse trying to find a way to destroy the people-smugglers' model since day one. Clearly she's a believer in pull factors, because if it were all push, nothing she could do would make any difference. I don't think she's stupid or irrational and neither do you. There may be massive disagreement in the community, but Julia's made her mind up, and this is an article about Julia, not community opinions about immigration. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Too vague guys, yes Rudd said that, yes he was probably referring to Gillard (and others)... but unless Gillard says something like "the Pacific Solution worked" (she won't), we can't "firmly" place her in any "camp" – partly because Gillard and Labor are likely trying to have it both ways, they want to appear "tough" but "kind" at the same time, so it is very confusing and almost impossible to objectively express. I do have one suggestion regarding immigration policy which could probably go in this article: I believe that in 2001, Gillard was actually shadow immigration minister and was pushing heavily for "regional processing solutions" as far back as then. If we can find a reference, that might inform on her long-term stance on immigration and asylum seekers a bit more. --Canley (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"THE failed Malaysian solution will mean 600 asylum seekers a month would flood into Australian waters, overwhelming mainland detention centres and potentially sparking social unrest like the recent London riots, the government has admitted." . Govt is now of the firm opinion that offshore processing works. --Surturz (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Did Julia Gillard say that? Or the Gillard Government? Or more specifically, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship? See above for discussion on the distinction between the Prime Minister's opinions, statements and actions, and those of the government, cabinet ministers and the public service. Should be mentioned in the Gillard Government article if anywhere I reckon, not a personal biography unless Gillard herself makes these statements. --Canley (talk)
 * "The stark future for border protection _ a result of the High Court's decision last week to kill off the Malaysian solution _, scuttling plans to send 800 asylum seekers sent there, was given to Opposition Leader Tony Abbott  yesterday in a briefing organised by Prime Minister Julia Gillard." (ibid.) She personally organised the briefing for Abbott. So while perhaps they are not her words, they are her views. --Surturz (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless she comes out and says this, we can't use the quote in this article. But she'll be bound to say something. This is critical to her. The prospect of one asylum-seeker arriving every hour night and day from now until 2013 is not something that fills her with glee. Abbott may have a different view. --Pete (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's far too much opinion, and prediction, and "she'll be bound to say something" in the discussion above. Wait till whatever happens happens, is reported in reliable sources (which need to be VERY carefully chosen these days), and then add what those sources say to the article. Commenting here on how she's going adds NOTHING to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And your opinion is welcome. Thank you. --Pete (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that it was my opinion on this conversation, and my opinion on what's best for the article. It wasn't my opinion on the subject of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, this may be a touchy point, but um, you do have a sense of humour, don't you? --Pete (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I try to avoid commenting on other editors' personal attributes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you saw my personal attributes, you'd be forced to comment. Wow. --Surturz (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent)I think the shift in ALP policy under Gillard is extremely understated in this article. We are now in some sort of parallel universe where Tony Abbott is advocating closer adherence to the International Refugee Convention, while Gillard-Swan say that the best solution is ignoring the convention and entering into bilateral arrangements with a non-UNHCR country (Malaysia). See this link --Surturz (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source that reflects YOUR opinion? HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I included it in my comment. HiLo, I think what would be very helpful here is if you joined Pete and I in doing a little bit of research. We've been providing references and so far you have not. You're most welcome to continue merely discussing how we might use the refs we provide. I think it is great we have a diversity of opinion here. However, I think WP works best when both sides present refs for their side of the argument; that way we can collaborate and come up with some genuinely NPOV text. --Surturz (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Surturz, I did miss that link. Unfortunately, it's to an opinion piece from The Australian. I find it very difficult to accept even mainstream news from that source on OzPolitics being reliable these days. OPs I will argue very strongly against. (Even Philip Adams!) HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion piece, it's in the National Affairs section (opinion pieces look like >>this<<). When we actually get to changing article content, I'm happy to get more than one ref for any contentious points (contentious text should be supported by multiple refs in any case IMO). --Surturz (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * sorry to break a bit from the discussion, but I just removed the reference to the Christmas Island boat crash. I think it could be added back in with reference to how some people blamed it on Gillard's (or labor in general) policies, but the way it was in there seemed to imply she was at fault, which Is a bit pov. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * People certainly did blame her, and I have re-added and expanded the section. The key reason to include the Christmas Island crash, though, is that it caused the ALP to formulate "The Malaysia Solution", which is actually more hardline than the Howard-era Pacific Solution. See the current spectacle of Abbott invoking "human rights" in argument against it. A core principle of the international convention on refugees is "non-refoulement" ie. not sending asylum seekers back where they came from. The Malaysia Solution is pushing right up against that principle. The Pacific Solution was offshore processing, yes, but the asylum seekers were still under the custody of Australian authorities. --Surturz (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine now. Before when it just simply stated there had been a boat crash it struck me as Point of view. Now that it has the opinions of others in I guess it's fine. That's right, apparently I think putting in opinions makes it less point of view... I'm sure people know what I mean. Anoldtreeok (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

??
Where does it state that she is a communist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.0.3 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Political Provenance section: "She was also formerly the secretary of the left-wing organisation, Socialist Forum.[15]" --Surturz (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article does not state that Gillard is a communist. Why the question? HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Socialism is not communism. --Vock (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

At Home with Julia
Today we've had a sentence about this satirical TV series added to the article. I'm not sure if it belongs. The series is in today's news mainly because some conservative politicians objected to what they saw as the misuse of the national flag in the program.

Members of parliament are satirised daily in many ways - cartoons, comedy sketches, etc. We generally don't mention any of them. Why is this one is more notable than the rest? Will this addition still seem meaningful once the TV series is over? HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree it's not really notable. Like you said, other politicians are satirised, and she's not the first to have a whole TV series satirising her. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's My Bush! is the only similar one I can think of, and that's not mentioned in the George W. Bush article. --Canley (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's only four episodes in the series. It's already half over. Happy to await further comment. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that an entire TV series dedicated to satirising someone definitely should be mentioned in their article. I can't see any reason at all to exclude this - especially given how unusual it is. One sentence or so seems appropriate though, and the 'controversy' relating to the series should be in its article. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So, your reason is that it's unusual, right? Doesn't really seem substantive to me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, my reason is that it's notable in relation to the subject of this article. There are lots of sources about this series in relation to Gillard (aside from the nonsense/beat up about the most recent episode), and I really can't see a justification for leaving it out. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (outdent)It's notable enough for academics to write about it. Which bit of WP:UNDUE or WP:NN do the naysayers think applies? --Surturz (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's frustrating that so many people post here without ever actually engaging in Discussion, which is what the tab at the top of this page says. It would be absolutely wonderful if those disagreeing with me and other earlier posters could actually comment on the points we made, rather than totally ignoring their very existence in order to make stupid, insulting comments like "I really can't see a justification for leaving it out". If you cannot SEE those justifications, you must be blind. Feel free to show where others's points are invalid, if you wish, but don't just ignore them! HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't care for your point of view and do not particularly value your opinion unless it is verifiable. The show has been mentioned in parliament discussed publicly by several parliamentarians, an academic has written an article about it, and I have provided references for these. That is enough to convince me that the show should be mentioned and wikilinked in the article. If you do not wish to do any research, that's fine, but do not be disappointed if your talkpage comments are dismissed as a result. If you want to pursue this further then you can edit the article to test consensus, or take it to one of the drama boards for more input. --Surturz (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually looking for better manners. You know, a bit of good faith, rather than "Frankly, I don't care for your point of view and do not particularly value your opinion". HiLo48 (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The show has elicited a negative response from the political and media class as trivial and demeaning, which is a pompous way to say it's transgressive. Last night's episode turned my stomach, but I don't think we can suppress all mention of it just because it breaks taboos. As a prime time show on national television, inevitably it will influence public perception of the Prime Minister, so there's a prima facie case for inclusion as a significant cultural depiction. But since there's room for reasonable disagreement about its importance, it might be best to limit the coverage here to a link to the show's own article, without commentary. Lachrie (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Suppression was never my goal. Not even saying that it's trivial or demeaning. They are subjective judgements. I just compared it with daily political cartoons, and other random satirical sketches, which also influence public perceptions. We don't mention them. In one more week the series will be over. In another month it will be largely forgotten. I expressed reservations about including it on that basis. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Paul Keating article has "Keating!" the musical in the "See Also" section. If you are really worried, we can do the same here, put a bare wikilink to At Home with Julia in the See Also section. As for manners: sitting on the talk page, doing no research, and criticising those of us that do - that is irksome and a borderline violation of WP:OWN. If you are not here to improve the article, go away! --Surturz (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My criticism was explicitly of those who came here and ignored what others had posted, themselves posting shallow, meaningless comments. I cannot comment on the quality of your research. Saying "Frankly, I don't care for your point of view and do not particularly value your opinion" doesn't require any. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A bare link to the article on the show is probably appropriate here. A dedicated satire on mainstream television is a different order of treatment from a newspaper cartoon, independent of the quality of the work. The show is a major production and attracted a large share of the national audience. It's become a news story in its own right. We can't say what its public impact will be. There will be different ways to assess that. I don't think we can justify omitting a link here, but coverage of the controversy should be shunted off to the show's article, as I suspect the depiction has almost no correspondence to reality, and it's likely to be a bigger deal for television than it is for politics. Lachrie (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for a simple link in the see also section. As has been mentioned, Paul Keating has "Keating!" in the see also section.
 * Perhaps it may be a bit more notable and worth including in the general article space than I originally thought. Gough Whitlam's article references a political cartoon, Lyndon Johnson's article has a whole in popular culture section (though I know these are generally frowned upon so maybe not the best example), and a few other US Presidents have political cartoons. Still, I'm not sold on the need to include any more detail than just a link in the see also section. Anoldtreeok (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That Whitlam cartoon was probably one of the cleverest ever, and it later had his endorsement. I don't believe this series will gain the same fame. Anyway, I've removed the sentence and added a link in See also. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Review
Is this article ready for a good article review. The nominator has only made a few contributions to the article and it has not changed very much since the previous one. WP:GAN is backlogged and major articles like this tend to take up a lot of the reviewers time. AIR corn (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Positions
The end of the Gay Marriage section has these sentences "With around a dozen of the 72 lower house Labor MPs unlikely to vote for the bill,[122] majority parliamentary support for same-sex marriage in the 2012 private member's bill would fail if Liberal/National Coalition MPs were not allowed a conscience vote.[123][124] It is unknown if Liberal/National Coalition MPs will be allowed a conscience vote for the opportunity to vote in favour of same-sex marriage – Coalition leader Tony Abbott stated that "the matter remained academic" and would "consider at the time what to do".[125][126]" If this section is about her political position, and the Labor stance, why is the Coalition position mentioned? None of the other of her political position information paragraphs has anything about the coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.6 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole section is undue. It's recentism, and full of speculation. All that's needed, if anything, is a single sentence saying that the party did what she wanted. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's a conscience vote where the only way for Gillard's preference to pass parliament is with support from Coalition MPs - all something that doesn't apply to other legislative items this term. It also assists the reader without drawing conclusions as to why Gillard pushed for a conscience vote on gay marriage when she is not in favour of gay marriage. Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the IP editor. The last sentence of this belongs in the Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia article, not here, as it's not really relevant to Gillard. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In lack of any section in the government article, it's the briefest to the point view of the situation which assists in the interpretation of Gillard's choice of a conscience vote despite not personally being in favour of it. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gillard got rolled on the issue, and it is WP:V and WP:NPOV that she got rolled on the issue. We don't need to go into contortions describing what happened. Coalition position is completely irrelevant in the Gillard article. --Surturz (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the form of that part of the article now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Reshuffle
How can she expect people to believe and trust her when only on Friday her office was saying she had no plans for any changes to her ministry? Clearly, these changes have been under consideration for some time. Nothing wrong with having a reshuffle now and then, so why would she deny it even as the details were being comprehensively leaked? Call me politically naive, but why can't a PM, for once, speak the truth and say "Yes, I am considering the makeup of the ministry and I expect to be able to announce any changes by Day X", rather than the outright lie of "I have no plans for any changes"? --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Is that a forum style post I see?)
 * Yes, a forum-style post. Naughty of me, but it's the silly season, and that makes everything fair game.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In truth, I totally agree. I also wonder why the word that is being used is reshuffle. Surely it's just a shuffle. That's how I would describe it if I was playing cards, which is presumably where the term comes from. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, it's now happened, and it involves quite a few more changes than the highlights the media has given us - see the full details here. (Further proof that this was all under discussion for many days prior to the last "I am not planning any changes".) --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  05:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All major parties in most countries play that sort of anti-speculation game, surely you know this? Timeshift (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that John Howard used to do the same thing. From memory his office once claimed he wasn't considering a reshuffle when there was literally a line of ministers at the door of his office who'd been called in to discuss the new jobs (or lack thereof) Howard had planned for them! Premiers do the same thing as well. I agree that it's very dumb though. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know they all do it, Timeshift. That's why I said "... why can't a PM, for once, speak the truth ...".  It's become almost an unwritten law that the more something is denied, the more truth it turns out to contain.  No wonder Don Watson became so irretrievably jaded with the cynical abuses politicians subject language to.  It's all just a self-perpetuating game now.  Remember when even the teensiest leak of a budget was virtually a hanging offence (a UK Chancellor of the Exchequer had to resign because he brandished a sheaf of budget papers at journalists, even though he did not reveal any of their contents), but these days, virtually the whole budget is deliberately leaked beforehand and no wonder nobody actually watches or listens to the budget broadcast, because it would contain no actual news.  And yet they all go through this charade of the budget lock up.  No wonder politicians have a status lower than pedophiles.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The media turn anything in to a hanging offense now, objective reporting and opinion are now completely one. If one party plays nice, the other won't, and the one that did would get screwed. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And now she's denying any ministers threatened to resign. That obviously means ministers DID threaten to resign.  Black now means white.  Just as long as we know what the rules of the game are ...  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  22:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We could have an article on political euphemisms. (Will somebody tell me it already exists?) "The party leader has my total support" is a good one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding atheism
In the summary for a recent revision regarding the inclusion of Gillard in the category 'Australian atheists': Undid revision 470069455 by Mike5995 (talk) "Gillard has never used this term to describe herself"

Gillard has stated (of her religious beliefs): 'I don't believe in God' 'I'm not a religious person'

While it is true the word atheist is not used (my understanding is that the word is politically pejorative), it is clear from the word's definition that it is a valid categorization of her beliefs (or lack thereof). I'm sure you would agree, making a separate category for 'Australians who don't believe in god' would be ludicrous. -- Carbon Rodney 14:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Although that isn't an unreasonable interpretation of her statements, we've discussed the quite extensively before, and there have been a number of discussions on the BLP noticeboard. In essence, we need an outright statement by Julia Gillard along the lines of "I am an atheist" - there is a statement by her saying that she is agnostic, but it was many years previously. The decision with BLPs was to only claim that someone is atheist if they use the word to describe themselves. - Bilby (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I did not realise this matter had already been discussed. While I don't agree with the outcome, I respect the matter has been subject to extensive debate. -- Carbon Rodney 15:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop treating it like a religious group. It's simply a term denoting "non theist".Zythe (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there's a lot more to it than that. There are two strongly opinionated groups who like to add the claim that someone is an atheist to an article. There's those who want us to think "Gillard has achieved the important position of Prime Minister, and she's an atheist, so being an atheist is a really good thing", and there are those who prefer "Look, Gillard is an atheist, therefore she is a bad person, so we don't approve of her." We also have Wikipedia's policy on biogaphies of living persons which tells us that we cannot include potentially controversial content unless it is very well sourced. Your opinion on atheism may be quite objective (it looks like it is), but to many others it's a very loaded word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)