Talk:Julia Gillard/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Apocalypse speech

FWIW I Oppose inclusion of the "apocalypse speech". YouTube is the correct website to host that content. Sure, it's funny, but it fails WP:EVENT on the "lasting effects" and "duration of coverage" requirements. --Surturz (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree unreservedly. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It was funny, but not particularly significant. And I don't see how it warranted being inn a section on "Difficulties during political career". - Bilby (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree (and what was the reference to the 2Day-FM thing doing there?). Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sexism and misogyny speech

I recently edited the Julia Gillard Gender Politics section. These edits have been deleted. Can somebody please explain why this was done? User Skyring wrote in his deletion edit "Suggest discussion of rant on talk page". Because I am not familiar with the term rant, can somebody please explain the term rant? Thanks. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a spray. You've got a wide variety of editors reverting your contributions, you aren't going to get anywhere unless you communicate and cooperate. Put your case, especially how it could improve the biographical article. We are (moistly) reasonable, well-read, intelligent people. Apart from a few ranters. --Pete (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Sexism and misogyny speech was added by an anonymous editor at the List of speeches article on 28 November 2012 (See here). I added the speech date and a redirect to the Julia Gillard gender politics section on 24 December 2012 (See here). My recent edits at the gender politics section were aimed to provide information to the sexism and misogyny speech and to enlarge it by adding such things like a direct quote and a speech transcript. I followed for this purpose the precedent of Lou Gehrig's "The Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth" speech. As I did in the case of Julia Gillard there is a redirecting entry at the list speech site and speech section in the biography article in the case of Lou Gehrig's "The Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth" speech. Following this precedent/example I made my edits. Can they therefore be readded? And is there a special problem with this edit which was deleted immediatelly after its addition, but seems to me very uncontroversial? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got a hide comparing Gillard to the Pride of the Yankees. She's not even in the same ballpark as the great Lou Gehrig. --Pete (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I'm not a native english speaker and therefore not familiar with the expression you used. What do you mean with the expression "You've got a hide"? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a few things going on there P3Y229. In Australian slang, "You've got a hide" means you're being a bit cheeky, or impudent, or rude. You need to know that politically, Pete/Skyring is not a fan of Gillard's, but apparently is a fan of Lou Gehrig. Be aware too that the game of baseball is not well known to most Australians, and even if they do know something about the game, may be too young to appreciate who Lou Gehrig was. (Just curious. Have you heard of Don Bradman?) Surprisingly, both Pete and I seem to have reasonable baseball knowledge, and have maturity on our side, but that speech, "The Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth", would definitely not be well known in Australia. So any comparison between Gillard and Lou Gehrig isn't going to work all that well. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"the game of baseball is not well known to most Australians" - and yet, curiously, we all understand the expression "in the same ballpark. (See also: The dictionary definition of ballpark at Wiktionary) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, its hardly a concept out of left field. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Important to cover all the bases, though. --Pete (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My baseball card collection has few rivals in Australia. I do not have Lou Gehrig's card, but I have plenty for Cal Ripken Jr. Incidentally, I'm looking to unload my collection. I have many thousand cards, including a couple of complete sets, but I haven't done more than glance at them since the 90s. If you want them, HiLo48 or Mitch, just send me a shipping address and they are yours. --Pete (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Never heard of Don Bradman, but thanks for the explanation. I would to readd some sources, but make no changes in terms of content. Is there a problem with readding the sources of this edit to the Julia Gillard gender politics section? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just added the above mentioned without making changes in terms of content, after redirecting the list of speeches entry to the Gillard Government article. With this move the controversy regarding my edits is resolved. If anyone has objections to the move, please state them here. Thanks. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 07:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Pointy editing of economy and gender politics sections

I note Observoz has just added a couple of paras to Economy section and made some edits on gender politics. They appear POV edits to me, particularly the additions on the economy. The decision to abandon the surplus should be covered, but not in the way this has been written. It is written in an editorialising tone "one of her first policy undertakings...", then there is the repetitino of the undertaking through two quotes in the second para. It is a deliberate effort to amplify its significance, and the text "but during the 2012 Christmas break, with Gillard on leave, Swan..." again is designed to make it look as bad as possible. Not to mention that, since this is an article on Gillard and not on her government (see Gillard government, it is a little odd to be personalising the cabinet's position in this way. The other edits include using a form of scare quotes to deprecate Obama's praise for her speech and move the article away from summary style. I'd like other editors' input before reverting / modifying the current text. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Michelle Grattan called it "A broken promise of the first order" [1]. Paul Kelly opined "This is the background that explains why Labor cannot now pretend bringing down a deficit is a decision of no great consequence. It has years of chest beating, rhetoric and plans to the contrary."[2] Observoz' edits on the economy section are NPOV, not WP:UNDUE, and should remain. --Surturz (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you hamiltonstone. It's loaded language. Depending on The Australian, and an Andrew Bolt blog is never going to please everyone here either. The Lib lovers really should know better by now. I'll try to neutralise it a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ALP "forced" to adopt carbon tax by Greens

Editor Hilo48 wants to use the word "forced" when describing Labor's adoption of the carbon tax. I say this is clearly POV (and more importanly it is unprovable and, to be blunt - incorrect). There is obviously more neutral language to employ without using the word "forced". Sources and quotes available, but I think this is a bit open and shut? Discussion please? Observoz (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to discuss this, and Observoz has been doing a better job of that on my Talk page, rather than here. He suggested "in the context of a hung parliament, Labor adopted a Greens preference for a carbon tax". I reckon that's pretty good. It's pleasing that we're finally moving on to a view of political reality rather than just calling our PM Juliar. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the line I most recently edited into the article: "Following the 2010 hung parliament election result, the ALP elected to adopt the Australian Greens preference for a carbon tax to transition to an emissions trading scheme, establishing a carbon price via the Clean Energy Bill 2011." I believe that this is a good level of detail which does not avoid the controversy of a broken election promise entirely, but also does not suggest that Labor had a complete free rein after the election. Observoz (talk)

Yes. Good. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Little Asian fingers

Yeah, it was funny, it was in poor taste - and what jokes about prostate exams aren't? - but it doesn't belong in this article. Gillard's response was appropriate, uneventful and non-notable. --Pete (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but not surprisingly, the editor who last added it here is now inserting it in Tim Mathieson's article, again trying make it a story about Gillard. I've removed the Gillard smear, but left the rest. Your thoughts and attention are welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, you are showing yourself to be extremely sensitive to any points you percieve to be crticial of your heroes. I reinstated the edit here out of naivety (I saw it had been here, made sense to me) but moved it when you rightly pointed out this wasn't the right place for it. But now you are upset because I moved it to Tim's article, where commonsense would dictate it should belong. Apparently you are a difficult man to please. I did not find his comments even remotely offensive but, rightly or wrongly, they did attract a lot of media attention. Given he is rarely featured in the news spotlight, I don't think there can be any argument this 'story' is notable for him. (Sir Harry Nessbit 06:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC))

(Sir Harry Nessbit 06:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC))

Harry, if you can find anything I've said that conflicts with Wikipedia rules, go right ahead and point it out. It will be much more helpful than suggesting Gillard is my hero. You have no idea. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair's far, HiLo. How do you think others feel when you make the same kind of allegations? Why not just follow your own good advice on such things? --Pete (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to the final sentence of my previous post here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The comments are notable in a Gillard article because they give further detail of her thinking on what does (and doesn't) constitutes sexism, which she has previously made a headline issue when questioned over her support for Peter Slipper and when questioned over involvement in the AWU affair. Leaving it out entirely might mislead readers as to her public opinions on sexism.Observoz (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What sources support such an interpretation of her partner's joke? Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nick, not sure if that query is for me, obviously many and various media reports/commentary have referred back to Gillard's misogyny accusations against her opponent Tony Abbott. She said for example after her "misogyny speech" that: "I've had enough, Australian women have had enough. When I see sexism and misogyny I'm going to call them for what they are." Here's some sample coverage from around the world contrasting Gillard's stance against Abbott to her response to Mathieson: UK Daily Mail, UK Guardian, Fiji Live, this from Adelaide. Aussie radio and papers were awash with it etc etc etc. There's no rush here, I am sure the question of inconsistency will be put to Gillard in upcoming interviews.Observoz (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see anything in those articles that presents any new information on her views regarding sexism. There is no suggestion there of any inconsistency on her part. - Bilby (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tim made a joke. It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. Gillard's response was straightforward and uncontroversial. If we mentioned it here at all, we'd be reading too much into it IMHO and certainly giving it too much WP:WEIGHT --Pete (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

First sentence in introduction

The first sentence in the introduction reads: "Julia Eileen Gillard (born 29 September 1961) is an Australian politician who is the 27th Prime Minister of Australia and the Leader of the Australian Labor Party since 24 June 2010. She is the first woman to hold either office."

I was wondering if the "Australian politician" part was necessary? As she is the current PM of Australia, isn't that obvious? In addition, David Cameron, the PM of UK is described as "the Prime Minister" immediately, as is the PM of New Zealand. President Obama of the US "is the 44th and current President of the United States."

I think it would make sense to change the first sentence to Julia Eileen Gillard (born 29 September 1961) is the 27th Prime Minister of Australia and the Leader of the Australian Labor Party since 24 June 2010.

--Cheers, The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2013

The article says (Early Life and Career) Julia Gillard's family arrived in Australia in 1966 and became Australian citizens 18 years later, in 1974. That should be 8 years later. GeoffW1 (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've corrected it accordingly. - Bilby (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Is "Leader" a proper noun?

The first sentence describes Gillard as "the Leader of the [ALP]". However I suspect that "Leader" is not a proper noun in this context - her title is Prime Minister, not Leader of the Labor Party. Should we uncapitalise the word in the sentence and other similar use? Likewise I don't believe "Deputy Leader" is an official title either, so also ought not be capitalised. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking of state names

Previous versions of the article include "Melbourne, Victoria" and similar, where the city and state are two separate links. I unlinked the state(s) ([3][4]on the grounds that it was overlinking, but twice it has been put back (by different editors Sj96 [5] and Hedgefall [6]). I still think it is overlinking (especially in the context of an Australian article), and contrary to WP:LINKSTYLE - "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link...".

Can I have some other editors' opinions on the matter please. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this is overlinking is a problem for readability. As an Aussie, city and state links on Australian articles add little value and are useless to me as a reader. However wikipedia is global. Perhaps the use of categories could help reduce the overlinking.CamV8 (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the overlinking again. The convention of "city, state" is sufficiently common (worldwide) that it should be obvious in this context that SA and Vic are states, and in this context the city is more important (and thus worthy of a link). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not listed as atheist

Why resist listing her as an atheist? Here at 6:24 she clearly answers "Do you believe in God? No, I don't Jon, I'm not a religious person" from a 2010 interview. Here she is questioned by members of the public about being an atheist, and she doesn't correct them or state she isn't an atheist. "Atheist" is a description and Julia Gillard meets that description - she does not believe in god. -- Brian Westley (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion in the past, and the consensus was that she needs to use the words "I am an atheist" in order to meet the biographies of living people requirements. In the past she has described herself as an agnostic, and said many times that she doesn't believe in God, but as far as anyone has been able to find out, she hasn't specifically described herself as an atheist. The bar for describing someone's religious affiliations on Wikipedia is set very high. - Bilby (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Here she is quoted as saying "Try being an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister"Brian Westley (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not the same as "I am an atheist". And there are sources where she either self describes or is described as agnostic. While the atheist sources are probably more numerous, it's not a clean sweep. The final paragraph of the Personal life section explains her religious position, and leaves it up to readers to draw further conclusions. Oh, and if you're seeking an entry in the Infobox saying Religion: Atheist, it won't happen. Atheism isn't a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

She's clearly referring to herself as an atheist in that quote. And I KNOW atheism isn't a religion, but it also isn't a "religious affiliation" as Bilby wrote earlier; it's a description, meaning someone who doesn't believe in a god, which she has stated. Plus, most atheists ARE ALSO agnostics, since these positions are not mutually exclusive, so places where she refers to herself as agnostic do nothing to discount her as an atheist. Do you think Richard Dawkins should not be described as an atheist since he has stated he's also an agnostic? Your standard of "I am an atheist" is totally unreasonable in the face of her quote "Try being an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister" How can that NOT mean she's an atheist? --Brian Westley (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:OR. It says that, while the kind of logic you've just applied looks pretty good, we aren't allowed to do it. Go and find that statement where she says "I am an atheist" and your argument will be much stronger. But my question is, what do you want to do with it? It cannot go in the Infobox. What's wrong with the text I've already pointed you at in the Personal life section? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There are other people identified as atheists who haven't said "I am an atheist". I know of no place where Pete Stark (former member of congress) has publicly stated "I am an atheist", for example, yet his bio states he's an atheist. And the information that Gillard is an atheist could be in the text just like Stark's is now. -Brian Westley (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive - one says that there is no god, and one says that there may, or may not, be a god. You can't hold both positions simultaneously, although there is no reason why someone can't move between the two over time. - Bilby (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive" -- that's flatly wrong. "one says that there is no god, and one says that there may, or may not, be a god." Wrong again. This wiki doesn't even agree with you. How do you explain Richard Dawkins stating he's an atheist and an agnostic in that previous link? -Brian Westley (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this is such a big deal, but while some people take atheism to be a range of beliefs, it is more broadly seen as a rejection of a belief in god/s, especially when contrasted with agnosticism. It is why we have two separate lists - one for atheists, and one for agnostics. While some people may wish to say they are atheist, and take that to mean something closer to agnostic, and others say that they are agnostic, but mean something more like atheism, I'm not comfortable with treating the two terms as interchangeable. - Bilby (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

But you are treating them like they are mutually exclusive, when there are lots of atheists like Dawkins who clearly state they are both. And I'm not saying they are interchangable, they mean two different things, but they aren't mutually exclusive so you can't claim that a person stating they are agnostic means they can't be an atheist; they can be both. It's like saying someone who says they're Jewish can't be an atheist - there are people who are both Jewish and atheist, because these terms aren't exclusive. Brian Westley (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it just highlights the different way the two words are used by different people at different times, or even by the same people at different times. I dislike the idea of applying simple, simplistic, obviously arguable, one word labels to people for what is often a complex, changing position. And I question the motives of those who are keen to do so. They tend to fall into three camps, simple people, those who want to say "Look, x is an atheist, so x is a bad person", and those who want to say "Look, x is an atheist, AND Prime Minister (or whatever), so atheists are great people". Like a lot of other Australian voters, it's not important to me whether Gillard is agnostic, atheist, or won't tell me. I judge her on entirely different things. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I question why you're so keen NOT to call her an atheist; she has made a statement as clear as Pete Stark (Stark: "[I am] a Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being.") (Gillard ans: "Do you believe in God?" "No, I don't Jon"). Brian Westley (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what change is being suggested by Brian Westley. If he wants Atheist in the infobox, that will never happen. If he wants it in article space, well, it's kinda there already in Julia Gillard#Personal life. So what needs to change? What's the big deal about using the "A" word? WWGB (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is Pete Stark? HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me you can read what I write. I have already stated it could be similar to Pete Stark's entry, which classifies him as an atheist even though he hasn't said whatever magical phrase people here claim he needs to say first. And yep, she's been removed again from the list of atheist politicians, even though Pete Stark is still there with his picture, who has never stated he's an atheist as far as I can determine. There seems to be no standard at all in whether a person is considered an atheist. Brian Westley (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Who is Pete Stark? (And why do you think it makes sense to mention someone a lot of people writing in this thread are unlikely to have heard of?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Brian Westley, it would be helpful if you include links where appropriate. I presume you refer to:

• Pete Stark, US atheist politician
• List of atheists in politics and law, which includes Pete Stark, but not Julia Gillard

and perhaps

• List of atheists (surnames E to G), which does not include Gillard
• List of atheists (surnames R to S), which includes Stark

Presumably we should also consider whether to include Gillard in Category:Australian atheists. (Stark is in Category:American atheists.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if comparisons with Pete Stark are valuable, because either he didn't say he was an atheist, and therefore perhaps shouldn't be listed, or he did, in which case it isn't clear that he is a direct comparison. At any rate, the reason he is counted as one is because he was the only US congressman to complete a survey in which he said he was an atheist that was run by the Secular Coalition for America [7]. The quote by him that is being used isn't as clear as one might like, but I assume it was the survey which was the main issue.

I don't think the American Atheist survey asked "Are you an atheist?" because the people at AA know that many people shy away from the term "atheist." I don't know if the wording of their survey was made public, but it's quite possible it was more like "Do you believe in god?" If you're going to require a statement that includes the word "atheist", you can't possibly count a survey where the phrasing of the question is not known. - Brian Westley (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"many people shy away from the term "atheist". Exactly, which is why we must be exceedingly cautious in its use. WWGB (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Until now we haven't had a quote by Gillard where she said she was an atheist. The current one is the best we've had, and is "Gillard tells of a joke she shared with Barack Obama: 'I tell him, "You think it's tough being African-American? Try being me. Try being an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister".'" [8]. I think that's the most direct reference being offered, but by being given in the context of a joke it might not meet BLP requirements. That's where I'm unclear. - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

if there was a consensus, as bilby suggests, that she has to say the words "I am an atheist", then I would suggest that consensus was wrong and, in particular, contra WP guidelines. We set the bar at verifiability, not truth. As others have pointed out, she has stated she does not believe in god, and accepted the premise of questions that stated she was an atheist. More important to the issue, she has been described as an atheist in reliable sources such as SMH and crikey. Can anyone check the words used in any book length biographies? It would seem inaccurate 'not to call her an atheist. I have no view about the info box issue. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested following up the history, the longest discussion I can recall was at BLPN, which resulted in the consensus for self identification, and it was raised again during a rename discussion for Lists of Atheists at [9]. There were a number of other discussions here and there. The general consensus seems to have been that saying "I don't believe in god" is not sufficient to warrant being placed in the atheist category, and that a clearer self identification is required. I should note that there is nothing stopping us from describing someone's religious beliefs, as we do already in the article. The issue only relates to using the specific label "atheist". - Bilby (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby. She should not be infoboxed or categorised as an Atheist unless she describes herself as such on the record. Her beliefs are adequately described in the article text. --Surturz (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename the "atheist" lists/categories to "self-described atheist"

Given that:

• there is apparently a consensus that people should only be classified (ie put in a list or category) as "atheist" if they use that specific word themselves, and
• the (the reason for this is that) the word "atheist" does not appear to have an agreed-upon meaning

I suggest that the lists and categories should be renamed to be "... self-described atheists" instead of "... atheists". What the lists/categories are saying is "here are the people who call themselves atheists" - but we don't know what that word actually means, otherwise we'd be able to put people into the list/category ourselves. Consider: do we require a referenced quote from Gillard saying "I am a female"? If not, why are we allowed to list her as a "female head of govt"? The answer of course that we all agree on what a female is - but we don't agree on what an atheist is. It seems a bit silly to have a category (atheist) whose meaning we admit we do not know. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is that there is some ambiguity in the real-world use of the word. Its simple meaning is "someone who does not believe in deities" which is the meaning you are using. There are other meanings. Simply put, "Atheist" means different things to different people, so I think WP should be tracking how it is used (as part of pinning down its meaning), rather than asserting a meaning for the purpose of pigeonholing biographies. --Surturz (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"which is the meaning you are using" - I'm not "using" or implying any meaning. My whole point is Wikipedia does not agree on what it means. "WP should be tracking how it is used (as part of pinning down its meaning), rather than asserting a meaning for the purpose of pigeonholing biographies" - WP currently uses it (as a list/category) exclusively to indicate that the person has self-described, so that's what the list/category should say. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mitch Ames - Go down your suggested path and you will have to do the same for every religious faith and denomination. Your "reason" given above is wrong too. The reason we can't describe someone as something if they haven't explicitly self declared it is WP:BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Your 'reason' given above is wrong" - the reason that BLP requires self-identification is because there is no commonly-agreed meaning for the word. As I said, BLP doesn't require Gillard to self-describe as "female", but we do require her to self-describe as "atheist". The difference between those words is that we all agree what a female is, but not what an atheist is. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Describing someone as female is unlikely to be controversial, or point-scoring, but it's problematic labelling someone with the single, simple, and simplistic word atheist. Those wanting to do it tend to fall into three camps, simple people, those who want to say "Look, x is an atheist, so x is a bad person", and those who want to say "Look, x is an atheist, AND Prime Minister (or whatever), so atheists are great people". It's hardly ever a valueless description. HiLo48 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be much more useful to rename "atheist" lists to be "people who are atheists or who have stated they don't believe in a god/supreme being" (which I'd say is far more likely to be what a user is looking for) instead of a narrow classification of "self-described atheists" which would apparently exclude people who didn't have the foresight to use English to describe themselves, or at least used a language that has no exact analogous word to "atheist" -Brian Westley (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well at least we're heading away from the idea of a single, simplistic word for labelling people, but once we agree that's a good move, why not stop trying to label and categorise people in such areas completely. There are probably as many different views on religion, gods, spiritually, et al, as there are people in the world. Arbitrarily categorising them would really seem to serve little purpose. IMHO, the approach in this article of quoting some of her words on the matter is the most accurate and meaningful way of telling us what Gillard thinks about religion, gods, spiritually, et al. It's valid to discuss which of her words we might quote, but please don't attach simple labels. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Should lists of Jews be struck from wikipedia? Jews don't agree on who is a Jew [10] Lists of vegetarians? I'd say a list of people who don't believe in a god is a useful list (and much more useful than a list of people who have used the word "atheist" to describe themselves), and no more problemmatical than Jews or vegetarians. -Brian Westley (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Should lists of Jews be struck from wikipedia?" Yes. "Lists of vegetarians?" Yes.

Such lists can never be complete, and will only ever comprise people who somebody else can be bothered adding. Exactly what is useful about such an arbitrary list of some people who don't believe in a god.HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The same that's useful about a list of Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, saints, etc. There have been a number of recent newspaper stories on the religious makeup of the new congress, for example. -Brian Westley (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What new congress? India's? HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious we have fundamentally different views here. I don't believe someone's religious position is significant unless it impacts on the other characteristic(s) that make them notable enough to have an article here. That we have lots of other pretty meaningless lists does not mean we should have more. As I've said, such lists can never be complete. They will contain a subset biased according to the interests of some editors here. (The kind that like incomplete lists?) I don't think there's anything useful about most of them, for all the reasons I've given above. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

For Christ's sake - the back and forth on Julia's atheism would put most biblical revisionists to shame.

She *is* an atheist.

By the Wikipedia definition of atheism, she meets the criteria:

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

Julia Gillard has denied the existence of a deity, therefore she is an atheist. Case closed, unless you want to change the definition of atheism.

(talk) 00:46, 26 January 2013 (AET)

You have just proven that we don't need to label her as an atheist. The article quotes precisely what she has said, which is precisely what we should do as an encyclopaedia. We have not told the reader what conclusions to draw from that. You have drawn conclusions. That's fine for you, and for any other reader. We don't need to add your simple, one word conclusion to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Self-described atheist" as a list category would omit non-English speaking atheists; it's a ridiculous category and keeps atheists like Gillard off the list. Just to pick an example at random (and I found this on my first try), Anthony J. Leggett is listed under "list of Catholic scientists", and his footnote to support this says:

My parents were both Catholics (in my mother's case ancestrally, in my father's I believe because his own father had converted), so that we children were brought up in that faith, making us members of a small and somewhat embattled minority in the England of those days. Although I ceased to be a practicing Catholic in my early twenties, I still wonder from time to time how far the experience, in childhood and adolescence, of maintaining and defending, sometimes in public and in the face of some ridicule, beliefs and attitudes not shared by the vast majority of my compatriots may have influenced my subsequent attitude to physics and indeed to life in general (which, at least as regards the former, is I suspect sometimes regarded by my colleagues as reflecting a degree of iconoclasm verging on counter-suggestibility).

The only other mention of "Catholic" is "I attended the local Catholic elementary (grade) school". He clearly states "I ceased to be a practicing Catholic in my early twenties", so why is he listed as a "Catholic scientist"? He never states "I am a Catholic" anywhere in the article, which would be the test equivalent for the atheism list, and indicates he left Catholicism. Brian Westley (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

She finally used the magical word "atheist" to describe herself in an interview with the Washington Post. Brian Westley (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Link? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lally-weymouth-interviews-australian-prime-minister-julia-gillard/2013/03/08/9d0035c0-8733-11e2-999e-5f8e0410cb9d_story_2.html Brian Westley (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If that doesn't settle this insane debate, nothing will. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then nothing will. Unfortunately, all she has done in that interview is repeat and extend the language of a joke about herself. The joke was at least as much about perceptions of her than reality and certainty. What WOULD settle it is if she said "I am an atheist", but she hasn't, and one can only wonder why. (Meaning, we don't know!) We should just avoid trying to find simple and usually simplistic, one word categorisations for what are often complex positions. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it was a jocular context, but she didn't refer to herself as a lesbian or a murderer or a terrorist or a witch. She chose the word "atheist", without anyone holding a gun to her head, as a term that applies to her, as a contrast with the term "African-American" that applies to Obama. She used it twice. I just don't get what the objection is to us acknowledging her as an atheist when she's volunteered the term herself. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

She said it in conjunction with "single" and "childless", both terms that have been used by her more moronic opponents to condemn her, just as Obama's more idiotic opponents still highlight the fact that he's "black". And that's where I see the "atheist" part of that interview fitting in, more as an example of what her stupidist opponents say about her, than any absolute and meaningful truth. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But she is single, and she is childless, and Obama is black. By her own testimony now, she is an atheist. Her objection to having those terms used against her in a negative way was not that they were incorrect in themselves, but they were supposed to imply she was a lesser PM and a lesser person than someone who was married, and a parent, and a believer in God. She's now laughing that criticism off, and good on her. In the process, she has confirmed that "atheist" is a tag she is comfortable with. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see why there is so much argument about this, clearly she is a "Self-proclaimed Atheist"... does she need make her census form public just to prove she is an atheist?! Here is an article from "The Australian" stating that she is a "Self-proclaimed Atheist" if you need evidence that the label is self-proclaimed! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/atheist-julia-challenges-mad-monk-tony-to-a-bible-knowledge-contest/story-fn59niix-1226025679255 Troll-Life (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone is a "Self-proclaimed Atheist", it should be easy to find a quote from that person saying "I am an atheist". It's not. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This lame edit war is still going on, I see. Time to drop the WP:STICK. There are more productive uses of editor time than arguing over a single word. --Surturz (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole edit/talk war doesn't make any sense... if we held every factoid up to this sort of ridiculous level of semantic scrutiny then BLPs would almost cease to exist... I doubt she has ever been directly quoted saying "I am Julia Gillard" or "I am female" either but those sort of facts don't turn into lame edit wars. PS HiLo48 please provide a reference to your consensus requiring the exact phrase "I am an atheist" for someone to be labelled an atheist. Troll-Life (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. HiLo48 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT does not say that the person has to use the exact phrase "I am a [member of that category]" it says "the subject has publicly self-identified". WP:CAT/R is more specific saying "publicly self-identified ... either through direct speech or through actions". The question then becomes, does the quote "Try being me. Try being an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister." constitute "self-identification through direct speech"? I would say yes it does, because in that context the words "me" and "atheist" are direct and unambiguous. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is still no direct quote of her saying "I am an atheist". I wonder why? She says an awful lot of words in her job, most of them recorded for posterity, whether she likes it or not, and she hasn't said that sentence. The description, "an atheist, childless, single woman as prime minister" could, in the context of it where and when it was said, be just as easily seen as her describing herself in the way her opponents might choose. I'm not convinced that it was Gillard describing Gillard in Gillard's terms. When asked pretty direct questions about being an atheist, she has obfuscated, and avoided simply saying "Yes". I don't think we need anything more than the words in the article. Let the readers decide what she meant. You and I both have, with different conclusions. That's OK. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Boat arrivals graph

I removed the graph uploaded by Croc2009 as the heading an label used the words Unlawful arrivals. This term is not consistent with the UN refuge convention. In line with our obligations under the Convention, Australian law also permits unauthorised entry into Australia for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Australian laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. Asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. The data should be presented from a NPOV. I also noted the graph contained additional data that was own work.CamV8 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not illegal to seek asylum, but it is unlawful to enter Australian territory without a valid visa. These are 2 completely seperate issues. Someone who is an asylum seeker can be a lawful or unlawful arrival under the Australian Migration act.

Please see this document: Specifically this part: "Unlike the power to order deportation, which is discretionary, removal is an automatic consequence for every unlawful non-citizen. Non-citizens who do not hold a valid visa must be detained under s.189 of the Act and removed (ie expelled) under s.198. Mandatory removal was introduced to simplify the procedures for removing persons who had no legal authority to remain in Australia. It reinforces the principle that such persons have ‘no right to stay in the country’"

Now the question. Do boatpeople who arrive in Australian waters carry a valid Australian visa? The answer to the question is of course NO, which makes these people under Australian migration act, "unlawful non-citizens". It doesn't matter if they claim to be asylum seekers, santa clause or the easter bunny... Australian migrationary law introduced in 1992 makes it very clear... they are UNLAWFUL non-citizens unless they hold a visa.

I never used the word illegal in my reference to the arrivals, it was very clear and precise.. unlawful as dictated under Australian law. If you have counter evidence that arriving without a valid visa is legal in Australia, feel free to provide it. Crocodile2009 (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this at the moment, but following WP:BRD will be nice. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

From the very U.N Refugee convention Australia signed(this is the one that matters, the actual signed agreement): A refugee has the right to be free from penalties pertaining to the illegality of their entry to or presence within a country, if it can be shown that they acted in good faith- that is, if the refugee believes that there was ample cause for their illegal entry/presence, i.e. to escape threats upon their life or freedom, and if they swiftly declare their presence. This right is protected in Article 31:

"The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. (Article 31, (1) )

People are entitled to their own opinions, they aren't entitled to their own facts. It is quite clear under both the U.N refugee convention Australia has signed and under Australia migration law, these people are indeed unlawful arrivals. Crocodile2009 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not a common term to use, and is somewhat misleading. This guidance published for journalists by the press council does a pretty good job of explaining the various terminology, recommending against the use of such wording. See also this article written by a professor of law which states that people who arrive in Australia without a visa and then apply for refugee status have not committed any crime, and the use of 'unlawful' is not meaningful. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See also this paper by the Parliamentary Library which notes that the majority of 'unlawful non-citizens' in Australia are actually people who enter Australia on a valid visa and then violate its conditions (generally by not leaving when they're supposed to). Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree per Nick-D regarding the language used. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all nice refugee industry talking points, but under both the Australian migration legislation and the U.N refugee convention, boatpeople are either designated "unlawful non-citizens" or "illegal entrants". I personally think the Australian migration law designation of unlawful non-citizens as this is the one that matters. I'm yet to see any evidence here yet that the term unlawful arrival is incorrect. As to the distraction of unlawful non-citizens arriving by plane, you are using out of date information. There were 17,404 boat arrivals last year under Gillard and around ~3000 new visa overstayers arriving by plane, the majority of which are Chinese.

IF changing the word unlawful to unauthorised is what will make people happy then I will happily change it on the graph. Crocodile2009 (talk) 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think "unlawful" is a correct word to use, but if "unauthorised" will stop the edit warring, let's go with that. It would be better to update the original image instead of starting a new image file because that image is used elsewhere too. I think CamV8 should apologise to Crocodile2009 for calling his edit "vandalism" when it clearly was not. --Surturz (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah way out of line, he should get down on his knees and beg forgiveness. :) --Merbabu (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm new. I still think it was a lousy edit for the reasons I've already explained, but i get that it's not vandalism. cheers CamV8 (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If Croc thinks the Press Council and the Parliamentary Library are part of a "refugee industry" (a refugee industry? Does croc mean they are people smuggglers? What does croc mean?), then that says more about that editor's POV than about this discussion. Why not refer to them as 'asylum seekers' which at least has the virtue of making a meaningful distinction between boat arrivals and visa overstayers (all of whom are "unlawful"). I say this since the graph is only of boat arrivals. Unauthorised is better, but still doesn't draw a distinction that matches the one being made by the graph (that is, between people who arrive without visas on boats, and people who arrive without visas, or who let visas expire, having got here some other way). The most distinctive feature of those arriving on boats appears to be (1) the boat and (2) they seek asylum under refugee law. Let's focus the language of the graph to those facts. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In my several years here I've never seen accusations of POV (warranted or not) add any significant value to content discussions. Can we please just settle on "unauthorised arrivals"? To be pedantic, labelling them "asylum seekers" is just as incorrect as labelling them "unlawful arrivals". The true status of these boat arrivals is unknown at the time of arrival - they're not asylum seekers yet because they have not applied for asylum, nor are they unlawful arrivals yet because no official determination of law-breaking has occurred. This is not the place for political debate on boat arrival nomenclature. We have consensus for "unauthorised", so please continue any political debates you wish to have in userspace. --Surturz (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason we can't call them (as referenced by the source in the graph) unauthorised people who arrive in Australia by boat and seek asylum. I also note the graph contains data showing Australian Government policy changes such as the Pacific Solution. Perhaps additional data such as world conflicts may provide the reader with a broader understanding of the information.CamV8 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Does the original source for the asylum seeker numbers (or whoever u want to call them) also contain the govt policy changes alongside the data? If not, then this to me smacks of synthesis which is original research. WP:SYN. --Merbabu (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is easy to find RS linking boat people policies with boat people arrivals. [11] The graph does not stating whether the policies are a result of the boat arrivals or vice versa, so there is no OR. --Surturz (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The people who arrive on Australian territory seeking asylum are asylum seekers. Nothing more. They are not unlawful asylum seekers. They are not illegal asylum seekers. They are not unauthorised asylum seekers. All of those terms are racist political propaganda, these days from the Liberal Party and its friends. It's ridiculous POV pushing to imply that one has to seek authorisation to seek asylum, or that it's unlawful to do so. The issue of refugees and asylum seekers is a far bigger global problem than door-stop interviews for TV news and short term political POV pushing in Australia can ever describe. Stop the political point scoring here in the Julia Gillard article. It simply doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be covering old ground here. It's already been shown and well documented that under the U.N refugee convention Australia signed those arriving unauthorised are described as "illegal entrants" in the U.N charter. Australian migration law is even more clear describing anyone who arrives without a valid visa as an "unlawful non-citizen". While you are entitled to your own opinions you aren't entitled to your own facts. You may feel these terms are inappropriate and unfair but they are accurate. Signed U.N agreements and LEGISLATED LAW of Australia have relevance. I'm happy to leave it with the current title however.Crocodile2009 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Kamla Persad-Bissessar

Someone should change the info just under the photo of Julia Gillard. Kamla Persad-Bissessar is the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago. Cassyjanek (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kamla Persad-Bissessar was the previous Commonwealth Chairperson-in-Office. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What relevance does Liberal Party policy have to Julia Gillard?

Looking at this unsourced edit, I want to know what relevance there is to Julia Gillard. This is an article about Julia Gillard, not for speculation about Tony Abbott. --Pete (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As usual, you have no idea how to even discuss things neutrally, and follow policy here, let alone write a decent encyclopaedic piece. You are not discussing the matter I asked you to, even though you again reverted that material. You put "I don't like it" as a justification for your revert. LOL. But I don't want a fight. Write it your way. Keep wearing your blatant hatred of the ALP on your sleeve. Hide all evidence of Abbott hating gay people and imply that the anti-gay marriage vote was all Gillard's fault. I'll leave this to others to sort out. You're a very sad case. HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Can the personal attacks, please. I was responding to your own invitation if I didn't "like it". I make two points:

1. Your addition is unsourced. The source you quote does not accurately reflect your wording. You are assuming things that are not stated.
2. What relevance is there to Julia Gillard? This is an article about Julia Gillard, not an attack piece on Tony Abbott.

Sorry if I forgot to put in a new section heading for the leadership material. My apologies for the confusion. Now rectified below. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this edit, you say, 'Removed the voting numbers. Their extreme nature is due to Liberal Party policy. Nothing to do with Gillard. (See talk.) We must not give the impression that they were.' The bill was defeated 42-98. As the current parliament contains only 40 Liberal Party members (in a house 150 strong, a definite minority), then there must have been 58 non-Liberal members who voted against the bill. I suggest that these members, rather than the minority of Liberals, are responsible for the "extreme nature" of the defeat. Even if we count CLP and others into your "Liberal Party", we still come up well short of the majority needed to defeat the bill. We can add in the Nationals and still not have enough to vote it down, let alone by an "extreme nature".

I suggest that many of those voting against the bill must therefore have been Labor members, and that Gillard sanctioned their choice, as voting against ALP directions is grounds for expulsion. In fact Gillard herself voted against the bill, as per the source supplied. Do you see the problem with the edit summary? --Pete (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a number of Labor members voted against it, as it was a conscience vote as far as the ALP was concerned. That it was NOT a conscience vote from the Opposition side is perhaps worth noting. Rather that than giving the raw Liberal numbers, which gives the impression they were all unanimously personally against same-sex marriage, which is certainly not the case. If we give the number of Libs who voted No, we must also give the number of Labor people who voted No. But really, this is not a matter that Julia Gillard has ever supported - very much to the contrary, in fact - and if it ever becomes law, she can take no personal credit for it. I'm not sure why it has much of a presence in her article at all, other than whatever happened to occur under her watch, despite her personal opposition. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Gillard leadership

Here's the elephant in the room. The whole nation is discussing Gillard's leadership situation, but according to Wikipedia there's no problem. Julia says the issue is "settled".

That's crap. Here's what the ABC says, "The toxic infighting over the Labor leadership was supposed to have been resolved once and for all earlier this year. But as the countdown to the September election continues, the Prime Minister is again under mounting pressure from within her own party."[12]

That's the ABC. Other sources paint the picture in more detail. This is a long-standing situation - it's not something that has emerged overnight. No reliable source says the leadership question is settled. Apart from us, apparently.

Why are we misleading our readers? --Pete (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We're not. We quote Gillard as saying the issue is "settled", and the quotes suggest that readers are free to believe this or not. We are not saying it's settled, we're just reporting what Gillard is saying about it. We then go on to say "Speculation on Gillard's leadership has remained a major issue ...". How is that misleading?

Maybe we can connect these 2 sentences with "However", and make them part of the same paragraph. Would that work for you? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that as an improvement from my text, --Pete (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've joined the dots, and added some extra words about the media speculation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Boat Arrivals image POV

A discussion is underway at [13] about whether more detail needs to be added to the boat arrivals image to improve its POV. Please have a look and contribute. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I gather that we're being asked to discuss it here, so: I find the graph to be misleading. It highlights a single issue (policy changes) and suggests that the policy changes are responsible for changes in immigration numbers, creating a problem with synthesis. While there might be a case for this in articles which provide context, here we only talk about policy changes since 2010, none of which are highlighted on the chart, and we don't provide any broader context. Accordingly, I don't feel that the graph is appropriate in this article. - Bilby (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The graph is factual - where is the synthesis? Are we making a statement that is unsupported? No. Are we saying something that is a creation of logic? No. --Pete (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis comes from combining two separate sources to make a new claim. The source used for that graph does not include the policy changes. The creator has combined policy changes with numbers of arrivals to suggest a causal relationship between the two, when other sources claim a more complex relationship.

That said, none of the policies included in the graph were the result of the Gillard government. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Where is the claim? I hear what you are saying, but I think the synthesis is occurring in your mind, not in the graphic. Having said that, we could add in the various policy changes introduced by the Gillard government. --Pete (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't see a graph that shows numbers of arrivals by boat, highlighting the points at which certain policies were introduced without including any other information, as making a claim? I'd be hard pressed to imagine anyone looking at that graph and not seeing a claim of a causal relationship. - Bilby (talk) 09:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That's as may be, but we are making no claims. Showing policy events and arrivals are two different things - we are not stating a relationship. --Pete (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we are. That's why he have the policy against synthesis. If you juxtapose two separate claims, in such a way as to lead the user to a conclusion that isn't supported, then we have a problem. Here we have two juxtaposed claims - the number of people arriving by unauthorised boats, and the policies of various governments - which will lead the reader to conclude a causal relationship. We know, from other sources, that such a conclusion would not be the correct view. It would be far more useful without the policy labels, especially given that none of the highlighted policies are Gillard's. - Bilby (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby that the juxtaposition of the numbers of arrivals and government policies leads the reader that a causal link has been established. The graph does not contain enough information (for e.g if the number of arrivals is the numerator, what is the denominator or quantum? What world events may have affected the numbers seeing asylum?) and therefore does not stand alone. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"...would not be the correct view..." Tell me. What is "the correct view"? And would it be correct to say that this view is a majority view? And how does a view differ from an opinion? --Pete (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not the 'correct view' because it only graphs one dimension of the total data available and it implies a causal link that hasn't been established. There are more data available on the issue of boat arrivals and providing all of that information would ensure neutrality. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

We could say that there is more data available for "everything". We can never have a complete view. I urge you to look at WP:NPOV. Sounds to me like you are tying to give undue weight to fringe views. --Pete (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should go at the talk page of the image as it is used in a number of articles dealing with the subject. For that reason I have copied the discussion above to File_talk:BoatArrivals.gif. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it. Kindly observe the wikiprocedures for talk pages. --Pete (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The source used for the [[14] is [15]. Much of that material is about how numbers of people arriving by boat is a product of multiple factors, and fluctuates based on global factors. The graph gives the impression that numbers are connected to policy, so is not representative of the source. This may not have been the intention of the graph, but it is how it is presented. In addition, it shows no policies related to Gillard, and numbers of arrivals are not discussed in the article. It doesn't have a place here. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want, I can find truckloads of sources discussing the role of the Pacific Solution in Gillard's approach to asylum seekers. It would definitely be POV to remove any contrast between the policies of previous governments and Gillard's. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The implication of the graph is clearly that the policy has caused the changes and not the other way around, and there are numerous conflicting references on that question. Bilby is correct that the graphic does not include any Gillard policy changes, perhaps it should be updated to include reintroduction of off shore processing and maybe foreshadowing the 'Malaysian Solution'? In the mean time Bilby may have a point about its relevance to this article.

Pete how do you propose we provide a balanced contrast between the policies of the previous governments and Gillard's without including Gillard's policies? This graphic only shows those of the Howard Government and the Rudd government. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have also initiated an RFC on the graph at File talk:BoatArrivals.gif and Surturz has initiated an ANI on me for WP:3RR here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_3RR_vio_by_Djapa84. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I largely agree with Bilby. This graph has a place in articles about asylum seekers and the like. It has no place in a biography of Gillard. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The failure of Gillard to address the issue, contrary to her election pledge, is one of the reasons why she is so unpopular. If we remove all criticism of Gillard, our readers are going to wonder why she is polling so poorly. Other PMs have significant amounts of criticism in their articles. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So have some criticism that refers to the graph. As far as I can see there is no reference to the graph. However, you will have to address NPOV issues in adding that criticism. A strong case can be made that whatever Gillard did (or indeed whatever Abbott might do if he gets in) would not have altered the flow of boat people as that is influenced by events outside Australia. The graph just does not fit in at least at present, and it may never do so. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Bduke and Bilby - what this graph lacks in substance, it makes up for in POV attack. In it's current form, the graph appears to be negatively skewed - none of the policies had even been put into place by Gillard. Unless it's significantly changed, it should be removed. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 02:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I also concur with Bduke and Bilby CamV8 (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

A point made above that had not struck me during a previous discussion about the graph is that none of the key policy settings relate to Gillard, and the timeline on that graph stretches back not just before her PM-ship, but before she was even in parliament. It shouldn't be in the Gillard article at all. Ditch it. The article text addresses the relevant issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

+99 --99of9 (talk) 11:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a clear consensus that the graph should go. I do want to suggest, though, that Pete has a point about the tenor of this section of the text of the article. It reads as a list of policy initiatives that belies the political importance of the issue, and the text does not currently give a clear enough 'feel' for the scale of the issue and the government's struggle to tackle it politically, let alone as a policy problem. There is also trivial detail that looks to me as if it is included to give the impression the government was gaining more traction on the issue than was the case. I would delete the two sentences about the former Hobart army barracks. I think the same should apply to the paragraph about building centres as Inverbrackie and Northam, and the idea that they would be a temporary solution. In the scheme of this heated debate, and given the scale of the arrivals, none of these facts is of particular importance to immigration policy at the time, let alone a section about immigration / refugees within a biographical article about a PM. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Image removed --99of9 (talk) 10:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this image is used in other articles and many of the arguments raised here also apply to its use there. Do people think adding the date of the return to off-shore processing (Nov 2012) would be sufficient to remove the bias? Djapa Owen (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Resignation effective 27 June

The Governor-General's office has published letters from Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd dated 26 June. The former's letter to the Governor-General shows that she indicated her resignation would be effective from the appointment of Kevin Rudd to the office of Prime Minister. Obviously this is a fast-moving series of events, so I am more than happy for others to raise alternative arguments. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I have also changed Gillard's term in the lists of Prime Ministers of Australia to 3 years, 3 days. --Canley (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

PM Status not resolved

If Rudd is confirmed leader, he doesn't automatically become PM. The Governor General may test the minority government on the floor, call an early election, or install Abbott as PM +/- an early election. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Can the Governor General actually still install Abbott? Wasn't there a constitutional crisis last time that happened, and the power removed? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If Rudd cant form a minority Govt, Abbott would most likely be installed pending an early general election. Flat Out let's discuss it 11:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think the power has ever been removed? It hasn't been. It can all happen again. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"The vote makes Mr Rudd the leader of the Labor Party, but not prime minister. Ms Gillard must write to Governor General Quentin Bryce stating that she is resigning as prime minister before Mr Rudd can be sworn in." [16] That hasn't happened yet. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Gillard has resigned her commision, PM position is currently vacant. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Tendering a resignation is more likely. If there's an earthquake, a tsunami or a terrorist attack is Australia supposed to say "Please can you hold off until we've sorted out who is PM?" No, somebody has to take the 3am call and usually that's the outgoing PM until their successor is actually installed. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that you are wrong. Typically the resigning PM remains PM until the replacement is actually commissioned. Thus, the official sources will eventually show that her tenure ended on 27 June. -Rrius (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source for that? (Completely neutral question, I don't know either way.) A prime minister is not a king (where succession is legally instantaneous), it seems equally reasonable that (1) the commission is terminated until the next one is commissioneed, or (2) the commission is resigned but not terminated until the next one is commissioned. I suspect it may be entirely up to the Governor-General, but on the face of it when you "hand in" your commission you no longer hold it, so you are no longer prime minister.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a moot point now, but a country doesn't need an incumbent PM to run IMO. Rudd has been, or is about to be, sworn in so issue resolved. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. A note to anyone who reads the discussion later on - the GG's office has released the letters from Gillard and Rudd, and Gillard's letter specifically says she is resigning her commission to take effect upon the GG commissioning the new PM. There being no evidence that the GG accepted her resignation with any conditions or provisos, we can probably safely conclude that Gillard has indeed remained prime minister after tendering her resignation up to and until Kevin Rudd was commissioned the next morning. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just realised the next thread already addresed the point.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Retirement at election

I just edited the Arthur Fadden article, it had said he was the last former PM to have retired at a general election. Since JG has now announced she will not be recontesting Lalor at the 2013 election, is it worth updating this article to reflect that she is now the last former PM since Fadden to have retired at a general election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdk0 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It was wrong anyway. John Gorton retired on 11 November 1975, prior to the 1975 election. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. Gorton retired from the liberal party in May '75 after Fraser deposed Snedden as liberal leader. He stayed on in Higgins as an independent for the remainder of that term of parliament, stating his intention to try and return to the Senate as an independent in the following election. He stood as a senator for the newly created ACT senate seats in the December 75 election, only retiring from politics on December 14 after failing to win a seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.142.139 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could view this in different ways. As far as the official records of the Parliament are concerned, he ceased being a member on 11 November 1975, as he chose not to recontest his seat. That is a retirement from the lower house. Sure, he tried to get back into the Senate, and in that sense he remained "in politics". But by then, he was in the same position as someone who had never been in parliament at all. The parliamentary record will not recognise candidates until such time as they actually get elected or appointed. As far as the Senate is concerned, his service to that chamber ended in 1968 when he resigned. Lots of people are "in politics" without being members of parliament. It could be argued, for example, that John Howard and Bob Hawke are still "in politics", as they continue actively to use their personal influence to advance the cause of their respective parties. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Such statements should clarify they mean retire from Parliament rather than politics altogether - lots of former parliamentarians do still kick around and contribute to discourse no matter how much their (ex)parties wish they'd shut up. I think there's a big difference between someone choosing of their own free will to end their Parliamentary and someone having it ended by the voters, even if that comes in an attempt to change seat and/or house with completely different voters from the ones who'd previously sent them there. Imagine if Barnaby Joyce is defeated in New Engand - that will be a very different end to his career from Ron Boswell's. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Fabian Socialist member

With the excellent history on the main page of Ms Gillard, nobody has mentioned the fact that she is a very notable member of the Fabian Society, whose ideals, among others, is the relentless pursuit of socialist ideas and policy through slow influence on main stream power brokers. It is also worth mentioning that of the Prime Ministers of Australia who are members of the Fabian Society, and covertly execute its policies without the general public being aware of it, there is a significant trend of budget deficits and unpopular standing with the electorate. Notable exceptions to this are for example, Bob Hawke, whose popularity is partly credited for his very softly softly approach to permitting Fabianism to influence his policies.

Can someone please include a sub article on the main page about Fabianism and Gillard, as it is completely pivotal to many of her decisions and their subsequent reversal when they proved unpopular with the electorate. Disregarding her extreme Fabian leaning leaves her page very incomplete.

See Wikipedia article on Australian Fabian Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.107.56 (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.217.107.56 (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's one point of view. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Australian Fabian Society or indeed the Fabian Society in the UK is hardly socialist these days. Indeed the word "socialism is not mentioned in the "Purposes" section of the former and the latter helped Tony Blair to get in! Today it is simply a society that encourages serious policy development and political thought coming from the left of the political spectrum. In Australia it has had as members, leaders of the ALP from both the left and right factions. I doubt that you will find a source that outlines that Fabianism is completely pivotal to many of Gillard's decisions, nor will you for Bob Hawke or Paul Keating. It is not even clear that Gillard's decisions were influenced by her membership of the left faction of the ALP. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The IP has made claims here without providing any supporting material except the article Australian Fabian Society which itself needs a lot of work. That article states that Gillard and several other living figures are Fabians without giving any evidence to support those claims (although the Fabian's website lists some of the earlier members up to Frank Crean). I think IP would do well to read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV before making any more random claims here. For example, can IP come up with any actual evidence that Gillard is a Fabian? I do not know if she is, but we rely on evidence here. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, if she is a member how can anyone possibly draw a causal link between her membership and her decision-making? This seems like an awfully long bow to draw Flat Out let's discuss it 00:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Directly refers to herself as atheist

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/03/julia_gillard_interview_australia_s_prime_minister_is_behind_in_the_polls.single.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopial (talk • contribs) 11 March 2013

Note this is The Washington Post article already referenced. Mark Hurd (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

We've alreasy considered it. She does not say "I am an atheist". It's just as much a reference to the fact that some people (often her enemies, and now you) are desperate to label an atheist. HiLo48 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

Please add in Julia Gillard's post-political career section:

In October 2013, Julia Gillard joined the Brookings Institution's Center for Universal Education as a nonresident senior fellow.

Here is the source: http://www.brookings.edu/about/media-relations/news-releases/2013/1002-julia-gillard-universal-education Here is Julia Gillard's Brookings expert page: http://www.brookings.edu/experts/gillardj

Maolinshen (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 08:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

an Australian former politician

Taikomochiyarichin (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Only in clumsy English. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Kim Beazley's statements

Please explain how Kim Beazley's statement that "I had some very loyal supporters... and I also had some very effective people who were not so supportive and she was one of them" is notable? Please explain how this statement was not included to imply Gillard to be disloyal? Please explain why it should be retained. Alans1977 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You say in an edit statement, No consensus has been demonstrated and material is contentious POV argument that Gillard is disloyal. As per discussion below, consensus has been obtained, if for no other reason than it's been there for eighteen months. It is not an argument, it is a direct quote from Kim Beazley, a respected Labor leader. It is notable for the fact that Gillard was demonstrably disloyal to Kevin Rudd when as his deputy she rolled him as Prime Minister. --Pete (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)