Talk:Tony Abbott/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

His Rebuttal

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4850 There is a very well written article by Tony here. It may be a good idea to include a quote from here regarding his opinion about religion and state.

Political Views

While I believe that this article was previously biased towards portraying Abbott in an undeservedly good light, I am concerned that Darren Ray may be motivated by a political agenda in his insertion of not particularly relevant and biased minutiae into this article. In addition I believe it should be known that Darren Ray is known to be a (formerly) fairly well ranking member of one faction of the opposition party in Australia, and therefore may be subject to political bias. (That said, I feel that it still needs to be clear the fact that Tony Abbott has made some decisions as health minister and MP that have been prejudicial, divisive, personally motivated and unpopular.) Snipergirl 0611 (Aust Pacific Time) March 4, 2006

Not taking the bait from the anonymous user, the issue is where is the lack of neutrality in the article? Describing the Minister as "divisive, personally motivated and unpopular" as the anon does would certainly constitute a lack of neutrality but I don't see those words there. Nor do I see the "insertion of not particularly relevant and biased minutiae." Perhaps a serious discussion might be in order.DarrenRay 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some questions for my pseudononymous/anonymous correspondent "Snipergirl":

Is the article really "biased towards portraying Abbott in an undeservedly good light?" If so, where?

Are you saying my "political agenda" is pro or anti Abbott? And if so this is manifesting itself how?

I think it's a reasonably neutral article, that neither puts him in a good light or bad. I admit to being favourably disposed to him as an observer of politics but I don't see how this makes much of a difference to my edits which have referred to controversial remarks he's made in one case and generally removed significant amounts of anonymously or pseudononymously written pejorative material about him. Further, I would appreciate it if you removed the personal attack on me above. DarrenRay 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I am not an anonymous user- anonymity would imply posting via an anonymous IP. Please read the Wikipedia FAQ on this matter.Snipergirl

This is where the whole anonymous-pseudonymous user thing is a real drag. How do we really know who is saying/writing what? For what it's worth I think the model of anonymous contributions to be the wrong one. And pseydonymous ones too. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

2) The previous versions of the article have been biased in favour of Tony Abbott. This current version is biased against him.Snipergirl

That is a concern. I don't want to be pro or anti biased. Not at all. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Your political agenda, if any, appears to be anti-Abbott. There has certainly been a swing in the bias of this article since you have begun to edit it.Snipergirl

My political agenda is not particularly anti-Abbott at all. You seem to know me and if you do you would know that. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

4) Your editing of this page has consistently sparked controversy among those who have commented subsequently. I am not the only person who is concerned about your neutrality: Ambi, Xtra and Ed- have all registered concern about neutrality during their edits.Snipergirl

In relation to what edits? DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

5) I have not slandered you in the slightest in my above comments. I have registered genuine concern about your neutrality as editor due to your well-known political involvement, which is clearly relevant to the article at hand given that concern has been raised about the bias in your edits. Please refer to the Wikipedia FAQ on "Neutral Point of View". Perhaps [1] this article illustrates what I mean about conflicts of interest in Wikipedia. Snipergirl 1005 (Aust Pacific Time) March 4, 2006

What about your political involvement? Mine is relevant, you say. But yours is not? This is presumably because you hide behind an alias. Frankly I think you should disclose who you are, and your political agenda and then we can compare apples with apples. Until then, you'll forgive me for not taking that argument very seriously. I have no conflict of interest over editing an article over Abbott. If non-anonymous users think I do - or pseudonymous - then I'll gladly not further edit the article. If anything, I think I have removed a whole series of pejorative language critical of Abbott. Something we should all be doing. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay:

Firstly, if you dislike collective anonymous editing of this kind, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. The whole point is that you are allowed to have equal rights regardless of your usual social status or standing in the political hierarchy. It is an entirely democratic project. I, and other Wikipedians, would not consider registering as a user as anonymous, because an internet persona is a better guide to ones' contributions than what they do in real life.

In terms of political stance: despite my dislike of Abbott and my own left-wing views, I disagree strongly with any form of political bias imposed on his article. This is not a political tool, this is an information source. As someone known widely in Australia as a prominent member of Labor Unity and rather well known for your term served in the Melbourne University Student Union, I think you should understand why your political motives are being questioned here as a potential conflict of interest.

Ed- has covered the controversial edit, that of Abbott's quote, in sufficient detail below.

Finally, please stop reverting all of your edits that have been removed and read the FAQs on content, NPOV and discussing controversial issues before accusing others of misrepresenting you. If you keep this up you WILL be reported.Snipergirl 06:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd swing in here as I've been mentioned, the part I removed misrepresented the situation and I thought I'd quote the relavent part of the Hansard to clear things up: Mr Abbott-Mr Pakula may be very appealing to Cambodian speaking people, who are just two per cent of the electorate of Hotham but 30 per cent of the Labor preselectors of Hotham. What about the 42 per cent of the electors of Hotham who have private health insurance? I read in the Australian last Friday that he still has the Greek branches but he has lost the Spanish branches, the Vietnamese branches as well as the Cambodian branches. I could not help but think, ‘Are there any Australians left in the so-called Australian Labor Party today?’

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! There is far too much noise. Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker is on his feet.

Mr Albanese—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the minister should withdraw that extraordinarily outrageous slur on every Australian who does not have an Anglo-Celtic name in this country. We have heard the dog whistle from this mob one after the other, but this minister, as usual, has gone too far and I ask him to withdraw it.

The SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler has made his point.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, there is no point of order. The honourable member across the way in fact was just debating the question. There is another time and place for that.

The SPEAKER—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I have not ruled on that matter. I was listening to the answer by the Minister for Health and Ageing. I did not see that as offensive, but if the member would like it withdrawn—

Mr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I did and 46 per cent of my electorate will find that offensive as well.

Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, if it would assist the member for Grayndler I am happy to withdraw anything that is giving him offence, but I say this: I think the Australian people are entitled to reject the way the Australian Labor Party constantly put people into ethnic ghettos. That is what they are trying to do to people. We should have Australian branches in Australian political parties—

Abbott's sarcasm couldn't be conveyed in the hansard but anyone who watched that question time, or is familiar with Abbott's speaking style and role within the Liberal party will understand just what he meant in his 'apology'. That's why I took exception to a line within a part of an article and chose to remove that part of the article because it misrepresented the exchange between Anthony Albanese and Abbott. The part I removed has been replaced with some editing done though I feel it still misrepresents the situation in the last line "[h]e withdrew the remark when pressed for an apology by Labor MP Anthony Albanese prior to any comment from the Speaker". The Hansard clearly shows that the Speaker ruled on Albanese's point of order before Abbott supposedly withdrew, the second problem is with the withdrawl itself. Technically speaking, Abbott didn't withdraw his statement, he merely stated that he would be happy to withdraw anything which caused offence to Mr Albanese. To my understanding House practice dictates that a withdrawl must be made with no statement attached therefore (assuming Abbott did want to withdraw) his withdrawl was out of order and could not be applied, despite the Speaker not ruling on the order of the withdrawl. Ed- 05:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I hadn't seen the Hansard and the references to what happened in the House should certainly be altered to reflect that. I will put up a proposed draft for you to consider. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I think this article is not biased either pro nor anti Abbott. Does anyone disagree and if so please state how so so we can sort it out. DarrenRay 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than just edit them out, my problems are as follows.

Abbott is widely known as an outspoken social conservative, and opposes abortion

Should read personally opposes abortion, or closer to the truth, is opposed to what he sees as liberal abortion laws in Australia.

He has expressed strong support for multi-culturalism. However, he attracted some criticism in February 2006, when lampooning a Labor preselection involving ethnic based factions Abbott posed a rhetorical question "Are there any Australians in the so-called Australian Labor Party?" He withdrew the remark when pressed for an apology by Labor MP Anthony Albanese prior to any comment from the Speaker.

Would be better if it read

---

Abbott is widely accepted as a proponent of multiculturalism though he attracted some criticism in February 2006, when he posed a rhetorical question "Are there any Australians in the so-called Australian Labor Party?" whilst attacking what he saw as divisive racial factionalism in the contraversial preselection for the seat of Hotham.

---

Those are two fairly small problems and I don't think the page is deserving a biased tag, particularly given it's length though the problems do need to be worked out. Ed- 04:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Howard's Chosen One?

The last part of the article reads "speculation has surrounded Abbott that he might be a future leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. In particular there has been speculation that Prime Minister John Howard...is grooming Abbott as his successor, in preference to the Liberal Deputy Leader, Peter Costello... Abbott, however, has disavowed any interest in becoming Liberal leader".

Where is the evidence that Howard is grooming Abbott in particular? Brendan Nelson was the one promoted in the last cabinet reshuffle, to the high profile Defense ministry. Furthermore, Julie Bishop has also been promoted to a more prominent ministry. So, it seems a bit of an audacious action to label Abbott as 'Howard's guy' without backing it up with a verifiable source. I couldn't find one. Unless anyone else can, then this statement should be removed. I elliot 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect that statement might be a bit outdated - it wasn't an unreasonable claim to make two years ago, but it is now. Rebecca 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I would say it is a well written and balanced article, covering some good and bad points of the man. Add the thing in about his comment on ethnic-based branch stacking if you wish, but more important I think is his opposition to stem cell research and the right of confidentiality for pregnant teenagers.

Abbott's Views on HIV/AIDS

Should we mention that (I quote from an ABC interview a couple of weeks ago) "HIV/AIDS is primarily a disease of intravenous drug users and homosexuals". Personally I think it is quite noteworthy as he is health minister making dangerous comments, any thoughts (from anyone)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squall1991 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Umm, but aren't drug users (who use needles to inject themselves) and homosexuals the primary victims of HIV/AIDS? Cheers, Rothery 11:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Thinking before speaking is usually a positive. Rebecca 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, who is? [edit: never mind, I've followed that up] But on topic, if he was criticised for these comments to a notable degree, and this can be cited by a reliable source, then by all means it should be added. Cheers, Rothery 01:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Health Portfolio Difficult?

(moved and responded)

There's a neutrality tag on the comment about Health being a traditionally difficult portfolio. I don't think it needs to be there. In Australia, the US, Canada and most similar parliaments, Health is notoriously a proving ground for younger politicians. I think it should be removed. 152.91.9.9 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Health is traditionally difficult at the state level, but I don't think that is true at the Federal level. In the absence of a good cite, I think the comment should be removed altogether. Peter Ballard 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Controversy?

The following paragraph did not seem to be controversial, so I have removed it:

In July 2006, when visiting the Pitlands in north-west South Australia, Abbott suggested Aboriginal people could be recruited to shoot wild camels that inhabit Central Australia. "Why not get them out shooting the camels," he said. "It gives them something they would love to do and it beats petrol sniffing."[21]

If anyone wishes to put it back, perhaps they could explain how it is controversial. JehoshaphatJIJ 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no view on it either way, but we don't only include controversial issues in our biographies. -- JackofOz 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph was in the section called "Controversies", which is why I thought it would be best to remove it. JehoshaphatJIJ (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It sounds like the editor who put it in thought it should have been a controversy, and on the face of it, I wouldn't disagree with that because it sounds pretty inflammatory - but since it didn't actually become a controversy, I agree it doesn't belong in that section. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the last section of the quote ("...it beats petrol sniffing") is a very controversial comment as it reinforces a racial stereotype that Aboriginals sniff petrol. It therefore should be reinstated in the controversy section. Jinliew (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's contraversal and relevant and should be included. I also notice there is no mention of Helen Wilson's allegations of indecent assult. These got quite a bit of coverage a few years ago and I wonder if they should be included? Wandarrah (talk) 09:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of theses "controversies" are about use of language and perhaps that would be a more suitable heading. Controversial political positions and actions are able to be covered in the Political life section in chronological order. IMO relatively few people will change a vote on whether Abbott called someone a grub. His position on abortion and morning after pill are far more controversial but are a normal part of public political life. Things like affairs, corruption investigations, friendships with suspected organised crime figures if they existed would be more likely to be things covered under a heading Controversies. Being found not guilty of a crime does not render the allegations and charge not worthy of inclusion because the burden of proof is so high. A successful defence of a civil action might still be worthy of mention if it was not knocked out in the early stages. dinghy (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a controversy ought to be defined as something which might change someone's vote, but I agree entirely that some of the things under the 'controversy' heading are his stated political positions and ought to be represented that way. Obviously, it's very important that the Helen Wilson situation is respresented even-handedly, but I think it's a significant detail in Abbott's public career and I think it definately counts as a controversy.Wandarrah (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye Jerusalem

An anon editor has inserted text concerning the book Goodbye Jerusalem. I believe the content inserted breaches Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

The anon has asserted on my talk page and in edit summaries The edits I made to the Tony Abbot pages does not violate the biography of a living person policy in any way, as the dilemna itself was closely documented by the media. Just because the allegations were determined false, does not mean that they shouldn't be a part of his biopgrahy. Again... if your logic were sound, then OJ Simpsons murder charge information shouldn't be included in the wikipedia, because he was proven innocent.

I find there is a significant difference between somebody who was found not guilty in a criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt plays a role here) but found guilty in a civil trial - see O. J. Simpson#Murder case and moreover has not sued successfully for defamation to suppress the allegations. Abbott did sue successfully for defamation. The book was withdrawn becuase the publisher accepted that the story was fabricated. We should not repeat the allegations as they thus do indeed breach our policy on living persons - specifically:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
• Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced. ...

Not only is the material unsourced, it was found by the courts to be untrue. If material is to be included about the book and court case it should be with words that do not reproduce untrue statements or even hint at them. --Matilda ^talk 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, but the allegations contained in Ellis's book were much discussed in the media. They were indeed found to be untrue, but the fact that there was a court case about them surely means they're in the public domain. Merely reporting the fact of the original publication, the fact of the court case, the fact they were found to be untrue, and the fact that Ellis's book had to be pulped and had to be republished minus the offending text, does not mean we're casting any sort of slur against any of the parties involved. Re the inclusion of this text being unsourced - that definitely breaks WP guidelines, but I'm sure many sources could be found to support the text. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned it's inclusion is giving undue weight. (The story is really about the idiocy of Bob Ellis, the Abbotts and Costellos were just victims). A short reference - as at Peter Costello - may be appropriate. It also doesn't really belong under "controversies", in the sense that all the other events under "controversies" are controversial things Abbott himself did. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• The edit that I have reverted several times does include the defamatory allegations that in my very strong view should not be repeated. I have no difficulties with the text included in the Peter Costello article, however I can see no logical place to include it in this article as per Peter Ballard's comments - essentially it is trivial to Abbott (and therefor (WP:UNDUE applies ) - less so to Ellis - significant hiccup in his career I would have thought.--Matilda ^talk 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image

Does anyone else question the license of the image? Where's the meta information for example? Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Peak oil

There is an intersting interview/debate with abbott on http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/node/1087. from May 2008. In this segment Abbott explains that he is not familiar with the concept of Peak oil ("It's not a term I have heard..."), and after the concept is explained to him, contends that Peak oil is not an issue beacuse the economics of demand will make other oil sources available. "So this idea that there is some fixed point, some fixed finitude if you like, I just find implausible". Fascinating argument from a former government minister, albeit one who was never environment minister or responsible for treasury or finance. Do other editors consider this worthy of inclusion in the article? Or is it unimportant because of the apparent lack of connection between Abbott and oil policy while in government I consider it especially interesting in the context of Abbott's strong public support for Nelson's proposal to reduce taxes on petrol.Spamburgler (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

So an ex-govt minister being ignorant about an issue he was never responsible for is notable... how? --Surturz (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am raising the topic on the discussion page rather than making the change unilaterally, so I expect more civility that a sarcastic response. One reason it may be notable is that Abbott was a cabinet member and responsible for being informed on issues he voted on (several of which related to supply of fossil fuels and pricing policies of petrol). Another reason for Abbot's view being potentially notable is that in opposition, he has been one of the most public commentators on the desirablility of reducing the price of petrol in Australia, and has forceful criticised the government for not doing so. In this context it is perhaps notable that he apparently does not believe that there will be a finitude to the increasing supply of oil. Still, I do agree that Abbott has never had a portfolio directly related to this, so would be happy to hear from other perspectves.Spamburgler (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a good (though not infallible) rule of thumb, for Australian politics articles, is to use Australian press coverage as a guide. Has the government or the press made a big deal of it? I don't believe they have, so shouldn't cover it. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

He made an off-the-cuff remark about a theory of which he had never heard. I don't think you can make the case that it is a deeply held policy of his. In any case, if he believes that the supply of oil is limitless, then that is consistent with a view that oil prices should go down. (I suspect that proposing a reduction on petrol taxes is more a populist policy than an ideological one, though). Not notable. Besides, I don't think videos are WP:RS --Surturz (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mad Monk

I notice the term Mad Monk is not in the article. Yes, I can hear all the party operatives say "that's not encyclopaedic". But if you Google, you see that every single major media organisation in Australia refers to him as "The Mad Monk". He is widely referred to by that term. --Lester 02:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think we should go down that slippery slope of adding nicknames to all MPs who have one? Timeshift (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but when it becomes very famous, such as "Mad Monk", or "Ironbar Tuckey", and all the major media organisations are using it too, then it's worth a mention. Most of the other MPs don't get their nicknames so widely reported.--Lester 07:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is fair usage in relation to Australian politicians IMHO. Nicknames for politicians, such as "Pig Iron Bob" for Sir Robert Menzies, are a part of our culture and so such terms, if they become widely used in print, should be mentioned in passing.--Phil Wardle (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as there are non-opinion piece WP:RS that cover it, and a reasonable back-story (that is covered without POV) for the nickname I see no problem with inclusion, as long the nickname is not used as an insult in the article. So I would say Pig-Iron Bob Menzies, Ironbar Tuckey are worth including (have a story behind the name), however Silver Budgie for Hawke, and Sloppy Joe for Hockey aren't WP:N (despite widespread usage) since they are just insults, there is no story behind the epithets. I would support the inclusion of "Mad Monk" in this article, since it refers to his involvement in the seminary. I think the current text is excellent: "It was this time in the seminary that earned Abbott the nickname "The Mad Monk"". --Surturz (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RU486 controversy

Remember the RU486 controversy? I recalled the phrase "get your rosaries off my ovaries" and found, among others:

• http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1565564.htm
• http://www.news.com.au/national/verdict-due-on-rosaries-off-my-ovaries-t-shirt/story-e6frfkx0-1111112576908
• http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/ill-wear-ovaries-tshirt-again-nettle/2006/02/10/1139465826319.html
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382568/

I believe that there were allegations that Abbott's decision to ban RU486 was motivated by his religious beliefs. Anybody care to write up a couple of comprehensible and well researched sentences? Bigesian (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely every decision by a politician is 'motivated by' some belief or other? Looking at his statements, his positions seem to have been motivated by his concern for the number of abortions being carried out. 90.197.150.214 (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can never know what goes on inside the mind of someone to motivate them to hold certain public positions. Abbott's position on abortion and RU486 does align closely with that of the Catholic Church, of which he is a public adherent. I'm not sure if we're going to find a meaningful reference to say that his views are caused by his Catholicism. Maybe we don't need it. Just mention his policy position. The article already says he is a Catholic. Readers can draw their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged son controversy

I'm not confident we've quite got the final tone right for the section over the alleged son. I think the controversy is not so much that he could have had a son - that itself is fairly innocuous and commonplace. The controversy comes from the implication that Abbott not only acted in a fairly reprehensible manner (refusing to marry the mother), but also engaged in actions contrary to his Catholic faith. The key issue being that he deliberately makes play of his catholic faith in areas such as abortion, sexuality, HIV/AIDS etc. If Abbott believed he was the father then that is sufficient proof to assume that he had coitus with the mother. If he used contraception (and thus was surpised that he should be a father) then he broke Catholic teaching on the use of contraception. If he did not then he knowingly engaged in unprotective sex. But nevertheless he would have engaged either way in pre-marital sex (again contrary to Catholic teaching). I think it only fair that the article make this absolutely clear as it it pertinent to his later political posturing. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the claims that the sex was unprotected because it wasn't sourced, pretty much for the reasons you expound here: if it was unprotected, then it is a different problem to what would be the case if it was protected. Given that, a claim either way needs to be sourced, as it potentially has some relevance based on which it is. How much relevance is a different matter, of course, and I lean towards thinking that whether or not he used contraception when he had sex at 19 isn't important enough to overcome the feeling that it is looking in just a bit too much detail at his private life. In relation to the other statements, what we would need is a (significant, I suspect) reliable source making the link between having pre-marital sex and his later political stance, but this may be tricky given the amount of time that passed between the two. Otherwise, all we can, and probably should, do is state the facts - that he had a relationship when he was 19, the woman became pregnant, they didn't marry, and later it was revealed that the child wasn't his. Interpretation is best left to the reader. - Bilby (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to remove controversies section

Criticisms/controversies sections suck. They are intrinsically POV. I would like to see the controversies section removed. I propose we move the Bernie Banton para to the main text. The non-Banton controversies are all essentially the same - Abbott swears in public. I doubt this is WP:N, but as a compromise to User:HiLo48 perhaps we can merge the rest of the controversies to a single sentence such as "Abbott frequently uses coarse language in public" or something like that. His involvement in jailing Hanson can remain as is for now. --Surturz (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that controversies sections should be removed. Of the current content, point 1 could be removed outright as it really relates to the performance of the Speaker at the time, not Abbott, point 2 can go as there doesn't appear to be any 'controversy', points 3 and 4 are highly relevant but can be integrated into the article as was done in this edit and point 5 is trivial. The stuff about Abbott swearing in public could be covered by reference to one of the many articles which have appeared recently which discuss his speaking style and discipline. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When the issue was described as swearing in public, I thought of one aspect of Paul Keating for which he will be strongly remembered by most Australians, his powerful and somewhat crude use of language at times. Interestingly, the article on Keating hardly mentions that aspect of his public persona at all. I think that's actually a fault with that article. It IS what a lot of people remember him for, so it should rate some sort of a mention. The same should apply to Abbott. His willingness to express himself as forcefully as he does is a significant aspect of the man. The article should not imply that it's either a negative or a positive, but it is significant that it happens. Perhaps the section deserves a different title. Can't think what right now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the swearing is a significant trait and one that many people not interested in politics will know him by. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would support WP:NPOV coverage of Abbott's rhetorical style. I agree Keating's use of language is a glaring omission from his article. --Surturz (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

How about Public Image for the name of the relevant section? (Both for Keating and Abbott) HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

While I think that may be ok, I don't think it is a good idea to do it now. The problem is that "Controversies" refers to a series of specific incidents. While I agree that most of the current incidents don't rise up to that level, they do fit the sorts of things that might be under that label. But "Public image" refers to the entirety of how he is perceived. Isolated incidents need to be balanced with general perceptions. Right now it seems that his public image is that of a person who swears a lot, yet that isn't what was intended by the name change. - Bilby (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly support removal of the entire section, if that is what you are suggesting. I don't think any of the incidents mentioned are actually significant enough events to include in the article. They are just the gossip of the day. --Surturz (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a pattern of behaviour and vital to his character just as Keating was and has already been discussed. Unless it can be smoothly worked in to the article without removing material, I wouldn't take issue with the principle of removing the section however... Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Abbott is a politician seeking votes. Whether we like it or not, a lot of voters look no deeper than "he seems a nice man", "he's a Catholic, you know" or "he swears too much for my liking" when deciding their votes. Abbott's verbal extremes are just as significant as any policy he or his party will ever announce. The should be in the article. (So should equivalent notes about Keating. I'm contemplating what to add to that article.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, it sounds like we have consensus that the events are not notable in themselves, but are examples of his rhetorical style. That's a good starting point for improving the section.

I would quite like a section on his political style/public image; I think often the unintended side-effect of WP:NPOV as applied to WP:AUSPOL articles is that we end up with factoid after factoid without any sort of context at all. e.g. describing Keating's "recession we had to have" quote as "notorious" gets reverted (when it obviously IS a notorious quote), and describing Rudd as a technocrat gets reverted (when he clearly is a technocrat). Facts get put in without any mention of why the facts are notable - that is left to the reader to divine, for fear of violating WP:NPOV.

So, hopefully, we can skirt around WP:NPOV by describing Abbotts "Public Image" - that is, we describe the verifiable perception of his character, rather than attempting to describe his character directly.

Do we have WP:CONS on what the essential elements of his public image are?--Surturz (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd has a very unusual and near incomprehensible speaking manner at times, there is no mention of that in his article? If he doesn't have a whole section devoted to criticisms neither should Tony Abbott. Consistency, either they both have it or neither do.Theworld2 (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not Rudd's speaking manner that's important in itself. It's whether it's part of his public persona. And it probably is. We (you, or I, or somebody else) just need to find reliable references that say, firstly, that he does it and, secondly, that it's part of his public persona. And these characteristics of politicians, be they Abbott, Rudd, or Keating, don't need to be described as criticisms. That is adding a POV. They just need to be described as part of the person's Public Image. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy for a 'Public Image' section in Rudd's and all other WP:AUSPOL WP:BLPs. Why don't we try it on for size in this article first? See if it works.--Surturz (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We're about to have zero images of Tony Abbott, leader of the federal opposition...

Heads up... Timeshift (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not very pleased to have nominated the photo for deletion, but the risks of it being used widely on and outside of Wikipedia with a claim that it was taken by a Wikipedia editor when it appears probable that it's been taken from a website are too great. I actually hope that it's not deleted, but I don't see that happening given the lack of metadata to confirm that it's the original version of the image. If anyone has a photo of Abbott (any photo!) they'd like to donate under a creative commons license that would be fantastic. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be great to have one of him in his budgie smugglers. Whoops. Sorry to be so frivolous. Couldn't help myself.

But seriously, no I can't help. And I don't live in Sydney or Canberra, so I'm unlikely to get a snap of him any time soon. HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's happened :( I've added the free image placeholder. Just an aside to anyone who thinks there was an agreement not to use free image placeholders, there isn't. And in this case, I think it highlights it's use. To new and old, find a free image and get rid of it! Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody needs to send a formal request for a free image to his office. I tried emailing them a few a few days ago, haven't had any response. Their address is Tony Abbott MHR, Level 2, 17 Sydney Rd, MANLY NSW 2095. Ottre 14:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This or this picture would be great to use, his works have been used before, however there's a problem this time. I'm not prepared to request he cc-by-sa-2.0 his image after he had a go at me for not personally removing an uploaded and thus released commons image which contained Rudd and what had become a recently deceased indigenous person. I don't think i'm their favourite person anymore. Timeshift (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Action against One Nation Party -> separate article?

Mikstev has created (and appears to be still editing) a large section on the above. It seems to be good quality work but now makes up around a third of the article's text content. That unbalances the article somewhat and, to me, appears to give this topic more emphasis than it deserves in the Abbott article. It should probably become an article in its own right with a shorter reference and link to it in the main Abbott article. HiLo48 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikstev - your thoughts please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48 - I have still been editing the One Nation portion of the Abbott article. I am sorry I have not responded to any of the above talk questions. I am new to this Wiki editing thing. I would like to keep the work under the Abbott section as it is very relevant, and yet contains not very widely known infomation. For me to consider your suggestion and as I am not sure, how would you suggest starting a new page?Mikstev (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

MIkstev - I've only created a couple of new articles myself, and found it valuable to look at Wikipedia:Starting an article and Wikipedia:Your first article. They have a lot of overlapping stuff, but worth reading. I also found the Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 very useful. I used it for my articles. Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's too long. It should be shortened to the bare bones. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time I have been on this article and the information under the Action against the One Nation party is simply overwhelming when compared to other parts of the article that desperately need expanding. The information is very well referenced and relevant, but relevance I believe has a limit. My comment would be either it be scaled right back (halving it) or creating a seperate page. Wikistar (Place order here) 13:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One nation action

Excised material may deserve own article. Jailing of a politician is notable. Thoughts? --SurturZ (sry can't find tilde on iPhone)

Yes. Notable. An article would be justified. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What would we call it? And, anyone creating it should give credit in the edit summary to User:Mikstev as the creator of the content. --Merbabu (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the excised material to my sandbox here: User:Surturz/Sandbox. I have not really read nor checked the material. What should we call the new article? Anyone know the name of the legal case? --Surturz (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting quite POVvy

This article is getting quite povvy. It's ridiculous that the very minor Bernie Banton episode gets a heading. The public image section is out of control. --Surturz (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the Bernie Banton episode was minor is a POV position. That's what happens when you use adjectives like that. HiLo48 (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a somewhat circular argument. Anyway, my concern with the Banton stuff is not so much WP:POV but rather WP:UNDUE (and in a way, WP:RECENT). The incident seems to be a simple gaffe that has had no lasting coverage (with a quick google, I could find only one post-2007 WP:RS ref, and I suspect that article was based on this WP article!). But it still gets its own heading. OTOH, "Climate Change" does NOT get a heading, despite:

1. His oft-quoted 'it's crap' comment
2. It was the reason he was elevated to the leadership
3. He has successfully campaigned against the ETS and the govt has shelved the CPRS.

I do think we need to revisit the structure of this article, and its over-emphasis of election year gaffes. I'm sure as the election looms the lefty editors will want to insert more gaffes, so perhaps they can be prevailed upon to clear the decks a bit. --Surturz (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Positions

Yesterday, user:Merbabu added a 'Climate change' heading, which I thought was good. However, today, someone deleted it, preferring to put things in chronological order. The 'Positions' headings were useful, as it brought together Abbott's various statements on an issue under one umbrella. In the case of climate change, Abbott has made numerous statements over time, such as this week's 'Jesus Of Nazareth' statement, and previous statements like when he used the word "crap". I think we should restore the Position headings that were there yesterday.--Lester 23:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is rapidly turning into 'absolute crap'. My observation from other WT:AUSPOL articles is that it is impossible to get consensus on either a chronological or topical structure, so the practical option is to have both. I'll also put in an ambit claim for an 'Federal election 2010' section so we can sequester out the tide of WP:RECENT material that is bound to be added in the coming months. The 'Climate Change Jesus' stuff might be important to some editors but it has only been in the papers for a day or two, so please let's wait to see if it becomes a serious issue before putting it in. --Surturz (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A conspicuous part of Tony Abbott is his position on climate change. The Jesus bit was a wonderfully colourful addition to that part of his image. It's not POV, in the sense that it just reinforces his already very public position on the issue. And it's not just relevant to this year's election. It's a long term part of the man. I would like it to stay, and I agree it should be under a broader heading of Climate change. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

His roman catholicism and opposition to climate change are well covered in the rest of the article. In your own words it "just reinforces" what already exists in the article, it adds no new information. I think it is reasonable to wait and see if it really becomes a serious issue, or is just a slow-news-day article. --Surturz (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those aspects of his character are covered elsewhere. I though saw it as an example of one of his characteristics, the Christian bit, influencing his views in another, climate change. We are used to Catholics having strong views on issues such as abortion, so that connection hardly has to ever be made, but in this case Abbott effectively used the Bible as a reference on a scientific matter. Quite unusual in a mainstream politician, and notable, to my mind. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recentism doesn't preclude recent events going into articles. It is to stop ranting, ongoing commentary about recent events without historical perspective. The brief mention of an event in a politician's life does not amount to ongoing commentary, therefore WP:RECENT does not apply. What does apply is WP:UNDUE.--Lester 03:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Surturz and Lester are right. Also Abbott said it was hotter at the time of Julius Caesar and Jesus, but Julius Caesar is not a biblical character, so the "religion-link" here is a little off the mark Observoz (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

??? Caesar cracks a mention in my Bible. In my mind there is no doubt that the Abbott has made a connection using his Biblical knowledge. He studied to be a priest. It is a major part of his character. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caesar was born 100 years before Jesus. When Jesus said "Render unto Caesar" he would have meant either the generic imperial title, or the contemporary holder of the title, being Tiberius Caesar. The important point is that you don't have to study to be a priest to have heard of Julius Caesar. But I am also not aware of any reference to him in the Bible. Observoz (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Budget Reply 2010

Questions of sourcing resolved, question of neutrality unresolved but considered moot as alternative version was rejected
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How should Abbott's budget reply speech 2010 be addressed? Media sources have virtually unanimously called it his most important economic speech so far. A hansard of the full text is available at the Liberal's website, but Editor HiLo48 pointed out this is not an ideal source. HiLo48 also said the speech was not "notable" which is at odds with my view and the view of the entire Australian Press Corps: this story led the nightly bulletin and front pages around the nation, was covered live on TV and represents a major insight into Election 2010 campaign issues for Tony Abbott. So I then paraphrased Lateline's introductory assessment in which Tony Jones said: "Tony Abbott portrayed the Government's third budget as a tax and spend affair and he promised to fight the election on the new mining super tax." Here. Editor Ottre deleted my edit without explanation, so I suggest another editor either undoes Ottre's deletion, or suggests alternative text? Abbott's effort to focus on Taxation in the election is a MAJOR point as yet absent from this article Observoz (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I was comfortable with the content sourced from Lateline, although personally I still fail to see that what was said by Abbott was surprising or notable in any significant way. This is not an anti-Abbott comment. It's simply an observation on the process. Everything that was said could have been predicted from many similar responses by opposition leaders from both parties in the past. HiLo48 (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I guess the accusations of "tax and spend" are typical of an opposition budget reply, but, for me the salient point is that Abbott is opposing a major new policy initiative of the government (the mining tax) and on the evidence of his budget reply, he is seeking to make it a pivotal election issue. I think that bit needs a mention?Observoz (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I will respond fully in due course, please do not try to reinsert the paragraph. Basic points are Lateline is not a very reliable source, you have provided no links to Sky News coverage which would confirm Tony Jones' analysis, and you try to force this edit through on the same day that Costello gives an extensive interview which I have only just started to digest, but which will obviously influence how we address Abbott's speech. Ottre 13:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Ottre, but I restored it. You have to respond with a reason to delete before you delete it. It's true. It's verified. It has multiple citations to show it is notable. It should be in the article. There are no space restraints here, so I don't see why facts that are widely covered in the outside media should be deleted here.--Lester 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Lester, I think you're a fine editor, but reinsert it again and I will report you to WP:AN/I. All content with questionable sourcing needs to be discussed on the talk page before it gets included. Ottre 05:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) No need for nasty threats, Ottre, as they have zero effect. I'll revert it anyway, and see what you do. You have not bothered to give a valid reason for deleting the referenced content, except to claim that the news and current affairs division of Australia's national broadcaster, the ABC, is not reliable. You need to do better than that.--Lester 12:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC) In my two years of experience in editing political bios, I have come to understand you need to provide at least three reliable sources to satisfy WP:V, when read in conjunction with WP:NPOV. One semi-reliable source (a few minutes of analysis from a late news program) and one unreliable source (an article from a widely read but unreliable tabloid newspaper) does not cut it. I have reported you to AN/I. Ottre 03:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Huh? You claim you reported me to AN/I. What for? Just for disagreeing with you? Where's the AN/I report? I don't see it. As a matter of principal, I'm against the tactic of using threats of AN/I just to intimidate other users who come to a political article. There is also no basis in Wikipedia rules for your claim that all political content must have 3 references. Therefore, your deletion of referenced content was unjustified.--Lester 04:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Changed my mind. I would have reported you for the original BLP violation, obstructive editing on this talk page, and misleading User:Observoz that when read in conjunction with WP:NPOV our policies on verification do not require multiple reliable sources (ie substantial mentions in two reliable sources or trivial mentions in three reliable sources, for BLPs substantial mentions in three reliable sources). But I see how it was going to play out, you would have argued that the ABC is well-resourced and historically Lateline has a reputation for fact checking. Most admins would have agreed with you (I think so too) that it wasn't a clear BLP vio, and merely suggested it is not presented in a balanced manner. You continually ignore the fact the source is a few minutes of analysis from a late news program and that the budget has received no international coverage, so we have to be flexible and take into account Costello's views in that interview. I think I'll just research the matter myself and ignore you. Ottre 01:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Ottre, your alternative version for "NPOV" is anything but - rather, it's neutrality is very rubbery, or non-existant. Using opinion pieces as sources is not altogether out of the question, but your edit articulates very well the problem with using them. If you don't understand why phrasing such as Abbott set down in clear terms the values he stands for and portrayed Swan's budget as proof of Labor's obsession with tax and spending is not going to work on wikipedia, then your edits are going to continue to contentious. Such phrasing is far from neutral - it states as fact that Abbot is "clear" and that it is fact that Labor is "obsessed with tax and spending". If you found a quotation of Abbot's saying the budget is "proof of Labor's obsession with tax and spending", then to quote it would be acceptable in terms of neutrality. But your edit didn't do that and I have reverted it. --Merbabu (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Neither of the sources are opinion articles. Paul Kelly's analysis of the week's policy debates, which appears in the Features section of the Weekend Australian, is not political commentary and the analysis of the speech by Geoff Kitney is reliable because he is one of the few veteran political reporters (Hartcher is good too) to have really explored Abbott's background as a journalist. I have removed the adjective 'clear', you're right that Tony Abbott would not summarise his speech in terms of clarity. I've also added a couple of news articles from the Herald. Ottre 08:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I have to disagree with that view. An analysis article IS opinion. In Kelly's case it may be a very professional article by a very experienced journalist, but it is still opinion. Of course, that's my opinion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC) That's too funny - of course it's opinion, and it's presented as a fact. I can't believe that you're actually arguing the point. Either you're a mug or you think we are all mugs. Please get agreement for your change - it's clear you don't have it hear - before reinstating your edits, or I will seek administrator advice. --Merbabu (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I just reverted Ottre's edit again. He deleted the same material yet again. Ottre provided no new rationale for the deletion, except that "material has been challenged" (we already know that Ottre challenged it), I reverted it.--Lester 03:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Excuse me, what are you doing? I have already shown that the material in question is incorrect. According the Australian Financial Review, Abbott aimed most of his attack at the government's proposed resource tax. Ottre 03:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC) ottre, the way forward is simple and has been discussed: find sources for which you can get consensus on their neutrality, and present their info in a way that also gets consensus on neutrality. This is discussed above in great detail. So far you have not got anywhere near a consensus - indeed you are alone on this one. reverting won't get u consensus. I've mentioned the word "consensus" about 5 times - no matter what an individual editor thinks of their case, they need to respect consensus. --Merbabu (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) PS – I’ve asked for administrator advice. I cannot force Ottre to play ball and work with the community rather than in the lone ranger style he seems to be exhibiting. This discussion shows clear opposition to his edits with no support in response. --Merbabu (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed - if the issue is sourcing, I'm failing to see what the problem is with Lateline as a source - we use it extensively along with other ABC programs (AM, PM, World Today, 7:30 Report, Stateline etc) in other Australian political articles. Orderinchaos 06:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC) @Merbabu: I plan to do some more research tonight. Just wanted to make it clear to Lester that material subject to a content dispute does not go back into the article. Ottre 06:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) But it's OK for your material that's subject to a content dispute to back into the article? Right. --Merbabu (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, Ottre, but you are alone, and every editor here disagrees with you. The war must stop, and you've failed to stop voluntarily, so I listed it at WP:AN3--Lester 07:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That was exhausting. I am seeking input from uninvolved editors, don't expect to re-challenge the material for at least a month. Ottre 13:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be an after the fact editor as there has been quite a significant debate on this topic but there are other areas of the budget speech that are just as important as the super profits tax, such as the reduction in expendtion and not cutting company tax etc. One other thing that people need to remember is that the resource super tax on comes online in 2-3 years from now so opposing it in this specific budget or even the next doesn't have direct immediate effect i.e. the revenue and expenditure flows. therefore while the opposition to the resource tax is important enough to be in here the other aspects shouldnt be ignored as they deal with other multi billion dollar expenditure plans.

in any case both the government and oppositions positions and attitudes were well known prior to the fact so in the long run it my be better to make certain points in different manner (just a thought).

Digmores (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Digmores, I think you will be right in the long run, although for the time being this is a useful milestone to note Abbott's intention to keep the mining tax as a central election issue. Perhaps though, the article needs a paragraph on Abbott's broader critique on the Rudd Government's economic policies/proposals for economic policy differentiation etc? So far this is not very evident in the article - on the other hand his tenure is very recent and this critique is evolving.Observoz (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, (on ur second point) maybe that would be a good section to include maybe it would be more relevent to make a short outline of those veiws at the present and then give a more indepth outline of the veiws in the article concenring the federal election as it saves time in the future as his career develops or whatnot and makes it easier to integrate new information.

Digmores (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes it very difficult to add well referenced information to the article if someone's going to delete it as soon as it appears.--Lester 07:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New material: Election 2007 + ministerial career

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey all, I think the sections on Ministerial Career & Election 07 have been way too thin (in fact virtually empty in the case of Election 07), so I've added material. Please review or comment - some variation of these edits will improve overall quality of info. Maybe one controversy will be: I think Banton remarks should be included in overall discussion of 2007 election, not have their own heading? In any event, there's much more to say about election 07 and ministerial career Observoz (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz diff 1 OPPOSE - does not add any new info to article, already covered by On 1 December 2009, when questioned about that statement, he said he had used "a bit of hyperbole" at that meeting rather than it being his "considered position" --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) PARTIAL SUPPORT - could be used in a way that can add to the article though in it is not the best quote or the correct sort of quote that one would put in the political veiws section, so a move and rephrase. --Digmores (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz diff 2 OPPOSE - Opinion pieces are not WP:RS. --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) PARTIAL SUPPORT - true they are not however they can still be usefull when backed up by reliable sources and when addressing a certain issue, relocate and rephrase what its referencing or split of and start a new sentance. Ironically, the sources attempting to be added aren't even necessary as the section's already sourced. Could be improved on, but that's as can be said for most things. Orderinchaos 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz diff 3 OPPOSE - Removes useful text --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) It is returned in "diff 4". --Merbabu (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz diff 4 OPPOSE (sorta) - The whole incident is ridiculously unimportant and should be deleted in its entirety. Keeping Removing the heading there legitimises the text. Keeping the heading there keeps editors focused on how stupid it is that this text is in the article. --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz removed the heading. Is this not what you are asking for? I agree with Bernie Banton heading removal. It seems I've missed something. --Merbabu (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry I said 'Keeping' when I meant 'Removing'. I think the whole incident is stupid and it should either 1) all go, or 2) all stay. It makes the article worse if the heading goes but the text stays. --Surturz (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC) So, it's all or nothing? Scupper the good, because we can't get perfect? Personally, I'd take incremental improvement over stalemate with the status quo. --Merbabu (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC) As I said, removing just the heading decreases the quality of the article, as it pollutes the text around it. At least with the heading, the crap is quarantined. --Surturz (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I actually support this diff - it improves on what was there, although maybe could be worded better/more concisely. The Banton and Roxon incidents did attract a lot of media attention during the campaign. Orderinchaos 03:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz diff 5 PARTIAL SUPPORT OPPOSE - I would support the retention of the following text only:He was also charged with establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, aimed at lifting productivity. . Greencorps text lacks a WP:RS (pollie homepages aren't reliable). Howard's comments about Abbott are fluff and unimportant. RU486 is already covered elsewhere. --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) So why don't you just get in and make the changes instead of 3 hard reverts? WHo's opposing you? --Merbabu (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC) User:Lester has rightly pointed out that the ABCC text is not supported by an WP:RS either, so now I oppose this edit in its entirety. --Surturz (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Agree with Surturz in opposing, although the final para of the diff re RU486 is acceptable. Orderinchaos 03:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Looking at the RU486 text again, I would support putting it in if we simultaneously remove the same incident from the "Bioethics and family policy" section. This would mean deleting the following text: "A conscience vote took place, in February 2006, approving a measure that deprived the health minister of regulatory control of the abortion drug RU486. Abbott and previous health ministers had decided not to allow it to be made available. Abbott responded to the vote by calling for funding of alternative counselling to pregnant women through church-affiliated groups.", and rewording the following sentence to simply quote Abbott's view on abortion without the backdrop of the RU486 debate. I think Observoz' text is better written than the existing text, and the incident should be in his ministerial section rather than his political views. --Surturz (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC) That sounds reasonable to me, but as it is reduction of detail, I'll leave it to you to argue the case. I've just inserted the reviewed, ammended text from below.Observoz (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz diff 6 and diff 7 (content move) SUPPORT - --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) You've now reverted this out 3 times, but you support it. Please get real and stop the "consensus" games. --Merbabu (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I've made the move. --Surturz (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Observoz diff 8 SUPPORT - --Surturz (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) A hard revert and tedious voting process on each point is not the way to approach this. A more pragmatic approach would have been to just get in there and improve on the good faith edits (even if it involves some trimming) would be far more helpful. Surely we can make things a little more efficient, and not get bogged down in, well, let's be honest, the crap above. And if you actually support "diffs 6, 7 & 8" then why remove them? --Merbabu (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I actually dispute the claim that these edits are "good faith". I think they are POV-pushing, but I think it more constructive to argue the merits than start a flame war. I have not made a unilateral decision to implement diffs 6, 7 and 8 because at least one other editor actively opposes them, and I think it better to establish WP:CONS first. I think a tedious voting process is better than getting your admin mates to block users that make edits you don't like. --Surturz (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC) im too tired to make my thoughts on the specific topics set out but the reason why i reverted is that if there a clear issue then just edit them out or improve the article and then if someone has an issue the move to consensus process which can be like watching paint dry and something i dont like. For the record i agree that not all the edits are 100% good but it dosent justify a blanket revision, its like using a hammer to make a cake itll work but the result will be very below par.Digmores (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I'm with Digmores. Hard revert is not helpful at all. Waiting around for unattainable perfection should not stop us from incremental steps now. I'm ignoring Surturz's last comment - except to say that it's completely unsupportable and laughable. Just stick to the issues please. --Merbabu (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Frickin'...!! The onus is on you guys that like the changes to come up with acceptable compromise text. I could not have made it easier for you to do so, by detailing my concerns. If you see smaller changes that you think I won't revert (like some I've listed above), why not make those, instead of trying to push them same text in over and over?? --Surturz (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Nice work - 5 day page protection. --Merbabu (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC) for the benifit of everyone else there was not time to make small additions as Surturz asks as i was trying to edit the version he was reverting so i reverted it back in order to make the small edits and then he reverted and it went back and forth, proberbly my fault more than his i didnt really commuicate what i was trying to do and he assumed in good faith that i was being a dick for no good reason or WP:POINT WP:3RR Admins, 3 reverts is not a right. We need someway to cut through this bs. Stupid "consensus" games and hard reverts should not be allowed to stand. SUrturz himself says he supports at least 3 of the edits yet he's reverted them 3 times. What gives? --Merbabu (talk) WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It is not my job to fix your crap text. --Surturz (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC) So what do you see your job as being? Wikilaywering, bad faith accusations, and edit warring? It was not *my* crap text - I reinstated it *once* after it was removed as "vandalism" for which that editor was blocked for 5 days. YOu proceeded to remove all 8 edits 3 times each even though you state you agree with 3 of them, and can live with others given some changes. --Merbabu (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC) PS - actually, it is all of our jobs to improve crap wikipedia text. You could have approached this very differently. --Merbabu (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC) everyone just simmer down Digmores (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC) "The burden of evidence" of factual accuracy has already been met when the contributing editor adds a citation from a reliable source. It takes time and effort for any editor to properly source and reference a fact, and format it for Wikipedia. It is in bad faith for any editor to make a hard revert without first discussing it in depth with other editors, and allowing time for that discussion to take place. Editors who immediately delete properly referenced content create an impediment for the expansion of the article. I might add, that the basic principal of avoiding immediate deletions should apply to all political articles, from all sides of politics. Not just this article.--Lester 21:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Opinion pieces and politicians' homepages are not WP:RS, so it is entirely reasonable to immediately revert. In fact, WP:BLP demands it. --Surturz (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Surturz, you just deleted 6 references from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Why? I want you to clearly justify why you deleted those refs, as your previous explanation doesn't suffice. The other reference from Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian could be debated, but are you saying that books by famous political journalists should also be deleted? Is that what you're saying?--Lester 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I have already clearly justified my deletions, (diff here), scroll up. http://www.tonyabbott.com.au is not a WP:RS, nor are all the opinion pieces from the Oz (precedent here). Observoz poured a whole bunch of crap into the article and it is ridiculous that you guys are defending it on wikiprocedural grounds. Why not debate the actual content? How is the article improved by Observoz' additions? --Surturz (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Surturz, I am discussing your mode of deletion, rather than the actual content, because I want you (and others) to give a valid reason before deleting referenced content. I want you to justify your deletions. So far you have not provided that valid reason I requested. I look down the reasons you give, and see things like "does not add any new", and "The whole incident is ridiculously unimportant" (meaning you agree with the factual accuracy). These are not valid reasons to immediately delete referenced content that someone else has added. The only other reason I see is "Opinion pieces are not WP:RS" for deleting content sourced from The Australian OpEds ('Observoz diff 2'), but then you are happy to add content ('Observoz diff 5') sourced from an opinion piece in the same newspaper. If you're going to apply rules, at least be consistent for both sides of politics.--Lester 03:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (outdent)You are quite correct, I missed that the reference ABCC text in Observox diff 5 is an Oz opinion piece, so I have changed my position to opposing this edit in its entirety. Thanks. Repetition of content is certainly a good enough reason to remove text (I suppose it might be worth adding a new ref to extant text under certain circumstances). I find it mysterious that you and Merbabu are refusing to discuss the content. The onus is on you to prove that the inserted content actually improves the article. Perhaps you think I am reverting just to annoy you guys. I am not. I have detailed my reasons for reverting, and do not believe that the inserted content improves the article. --Surturz (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I agree text and sourcing can be refined and improved. But shifiting material from under the wrong topic area clearly improves article; as does detailing significant areas of involvment while a minister (Australian Op-Ed is not vital, but "Tony Abbott + Australian Building and Construction Commission" yields 50,000 google results; "Tony ABbott + Work for the dole" yields 10,000; "Tony Abbbot + Greencorps" yields around 2000-3000 depending on how you spell it etc etc etc). Take your pick of sources, but don't argue Abbott's ministerial career is "irrelevant" - these are all useful biographical details which improve the article. Observoz (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Google hits prove nothing. A search of Newsbank for "Tony Abbott + Australian Building and Construction Commission" returns 67 results; "Tony Abbott + Work for the dole" returns 387 results; and "Tony Abbbot + Greencorps/Greencorp" returns 0 results. Ottre 05:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry guys, I still can't see the substance of the objection here. Abbott was involved in managing Green Corps, Work for the dole, & ABCC. It is just basic, factual detail on his 10 odd years of ministerial experience verifiable by multiple sources by means of the simplest of google searches. An expanded Green Corps is part of Abbott's 2010 environment policy. Therefore it is not only historically accurate to refer to it, but topically relevant Observoz (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Comment from uninvolved editor User:Ottre Regardless of what we end up citing, we should pay close attention to what is said about Abbott in the op-ed pages of The Australian. It is perhaps the only newspaper -- and certainly the only national newspaper, as the Fin Review is openly favourable to Abbott's brand of conservatism -- to maintain a healthy skepticism in its coverage of his policies. This is true in regards to his promise to repeal the resources "super-profits" tax. No other papers have analysed whether the tax would lead Rio Tinto to invest more in its Canadian projects. It shocked me because nearly everyone following the issue has heard about the comments of the Canadian finance minister two weeks ago that the tax would be a "huge competitive advantage" for Canada.[2] I believe The Australian has always had a strong focus on mining, similar to the Sydney Morning Herald's focus on higher education. This is also true in regards to the 1999 referendum. Part of the reason the no campaign was successful was because it was led by politicians from New South Wales, a state with historically intense "machine politics". Greg Sheridan is regarded as one of the best journalists when it comes to NSW politics. Just the other day, I read an excellent article by him from June 1984 about the rise of the ALP left faction in Sydney, which began in 1982. I thought he did a good job of taking into account all the contributing factors and for a retrospective piece it was very relevant to the issues of the day. Ottre 05:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC) The problem with the Oz' website, as I have found, is that in-depth analysis pieces get filed under "Opinion". So even though in the printed paper they may be sidebars to a front page story and contain a dispassionate analysis of the story, because the online version has "opinion" in the URL, they get knocked out of consideration as WP:RS. Because the true opinion articles (from the "A Plus") section are filed the same way online, WP editors can't distinguish between analysis and opinion pieces. Often the opinion pieces also contain uncontested facts, too, but these get knocked out for the same reason. I believe we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but I can't blame admins like OiC for rulings like this, since it would be too onerous to distinguish true opinion articles from analysis articles. --Surturz (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection level

Per a request at WP:RFUP, I've reduced the level of protection from "full" to "semi". In future, anyone editing the page will see a notice displayed. All editing of the article is to conform to policy, particularly that of WP:BLP, otherwise severe administrative action may be taken against the perpetrators, including much longer blocks than would normally be the case. Any contentious issues should be discussed on this talk page and consensus reached before material is added or removed from the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Noting that 3 reverts is not a right, I would like to see blocks applied to anyone edit warring again rather than a page getting blocked. I know at least one of those editors knows a whole lot better - I'm not so familiar with the other. --Merbabu (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I know we have 1RR restrictions for editors. Maybe in this case we need a 1RR/24hrs rule for this article. I will raise this at WP:AN and if it is agreed to, the edit notice can be amended to state this too. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

An editor has criticised me above for discussing process and not content. I've just explained on their talk page that if process is going to be abused and gamed, then I, and I know others, just aren't going to bother with content. People want to improve the articles, and they are willing to be fair and reasonable. But not under the way it's been the last 24 hours. --Merbabu (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Raised at WP:AN#Reversion restriction on an article?. Merabu, as this article has been raised at AN and ANI, you can be sure that some admins will have watchlisted it. As I said, BLP is the prime policy in force here, but all other policies and guidelines apply, including WP:DE, WP:3RR etc. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ive decided to back off for a while to stop a continual edit war and allow for other veiws to emerge.Digmores (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good, although I wouldn't want to see anyone discouraged from editing constructively. One approach that could be employed is to copy existing text here, and then propose the changed text under it so that both can be compared and commented on, so consensus can be reached over changes to the article. It was a technique I employed successfully on the Montefiore Windmill article. Mjroots (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

in retrospect the edits themseleves wernt the actual issue it was editing process and the different opinions on how it should proceed, i now relise that i should have taken a route more like the one u propose but i got caught in the heat of the moment so to speak so ive taken a step back to prevent any illfeeling and to allow others to say wat they think which is more important in the grand scheme of things than wat one, two or even three editors thinks.Digmores (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have recognised your errors, and that as a result it looks like there won't be any blocking going on. I hate having to block editors where it is at all avoidable (but I will block for the good of Wikipedia if it is necessary). Let discussion continue below, and consensus be achieved. It is possible that a 1RR restriction may still be imposed, although I'm minded to limit the timescale rather than impose it indefinitely (if imposed, it can always be extended should it prove necessary). Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank user:Mjroots for intervening with this article. Much appreciated. Intervention was necessary.--Lester 21:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd rather get back to editing the article, but since it seems that Merbabu is trying to make a case for getting me blocked, I'd like to speak in my own defense. I reverted what I saw as a host of mediocre edits and then explained the reasoning on the talk page (diff here). You'll note that a lot of the issues are with non-WP:RS references, which is a definite no-no in a BLP. There was essentially only one edit I supported, which was moving a paragraph from one section to another.

Merbabu then encouraged Digmones to keep restoring Observoz' edits. On reflection, I think perhaps Merbabu was previously offended by this edit of mine. If this is the case, I'm happy to apologise. Though I'd encourage Merbabu to be a bit more thick-skinned in the future, because you know something? I'm just some random guy on the internet, why should my opinion matter to him?

The broader problem is that in WP, if one opposes the insertion of text into an article, one really needs to do it quite strongly at the the time it gets inserted, because once it gets in, it stays around forever. Look at how much effort it took to establish consensus to trim the "Abbott swearing" section. A year or two.

I feel if you insert text, and someone reverts it, then the onus is on you to come up with alternate text that is acceptable to everyone. I disagree with Merbabu and Lester who seem to think that it is up to a dissenting editor to come up with text they think is acceptable to insert, when the dissenting editor doesn't want any text inserted at all.

--Surturz (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

To add to what ur saying about alternate text, as this is politician and a living person WP:BLP applies and the onus was on me and others to take it to the sandbox and deal with it there rather than on the page itself.Digmores (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

New Text for Section: Member of Parliament and Minister in Howard Government

• I believe the following text addresses Surturz' concerns about sourcing, and adds useful biographical detail. It also shifts text which is currently wrongly placed in section "Action against One Nation". Any objections or suggestions? Observoz (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbott was elected to the Australian House of Representatives for the Division of Warringah at a by-election in March 1994 following the resignation of Michael MacKellar. He served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001), Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Small Business (2001), Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (2001–03) and Minister for Health and Ageing from 2003 to November 2007. From late 2001 to November 2007 he was also Manager of Government Business in the House of Representatives.

As a Parliamentary Secretary, Abbott oversaw the establishment of the Green Corps program which involved young people in environmental restoration work. As Minister for Employment Services he oversaw the development of the Job Network and was responsible for the government's Work for the Dole scheme. He was also charged with establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission, aimed at lifting productivity.

The Liberal Party allowed members a free choice in the Australian republic referendum, 1999. Abbott was one of the leading voices within the Party campaigning for the successful "No" vote, pitting him against future Parliamentary colleague and leading Republican Malcolm Turnbull

When Abbott was promoted to Cabinet in 2000, the Opposition described him as a "bomb thrower", while Prime Minister Howard described him as an affective performer with an endearing style. Howard appointed Abbott to the key Health Portfolio in 2003, during a period of contentious Medicare and doctors' Medical Indemnity reform. Abbott was involved in controversy in 2006 for opposing access to the abortion drug RU486, and the Parliament voted to strip Health Ministers of the power to regulate this area of policy. He introduced the Medicare Safety Net to cap the annual out-of-pocket costs of Medicare cardholders to a maximum amount. In 2007 he attracted criticism over long delays in funding for cancer diagnostic equipment (PET scanners). During his career as a Minister, Abbott acquired a reputation as a robust parliamentary debater and political tactician.

Text looks good, and includes both positive and negative. Regarding RU486, didn't he "oppose" it, rather than just be "involved" with it?--Lester 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

could expand on the role in the monarchist movement during the push for a referendum as he was not just one of the leaders but was a very strong critic of a republic that should be acknowledged though if this is covered in other sections relating to his politcal veiws then it should be just on wat he did at that time in the monarchist movement which as recall was a more than fair amount. Secondly i think that he vetoed RU486 and the parliment removed the health ministers ability to veto drugs as a result.Digmores (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to Lester & Digmore comments, I have inserted into the model text above: an internal link + small amount of text to Republic line; and added detail of RU486 issue - but only in brief as we outline his opinions on these in separate sections. Also inserted citation to Age article and text re Abbott's appointment to Health. Observoz (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Republic issue was a non-party one, it doesn't seem appropriate to say that "Abbott was one of the leading voices within the Government". Just leave out the last three words. HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

he was involved in the monarchist camp before he become an MP in fact it helped him to gain support for preselection. Digmores (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's been a monarchist for a long time, but my point is that it's not really a party issue. Libs are more likely to be monarchists, but examples like Malcolm Turnbull prove that they don't have to be. It's right to mention his anti-republicism, but not significant to say that he was a leading campaigner for it within the government. While the PM had a strong position on the issue, the government didn't.

i was agreeing with u and adding in that his activites in the monarchist movement predate being elected as an MPDigmores (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Have inserted text clarifying that Liberals had free choice in Referendum, and that Abbott and Turnbull's views clashed + add citation.Observoz (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy with that. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

if may offer an alternative version,

During the years preceding the Australian republic referendum, 1999 Abott was a strong advocate for the retaining of the constitutional Monarchy serving as the National Executive Director for Australians for Constitutional Monarchy from 1992-1994.

I think reads a little better Digmores (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it removes that party connection. I like that too. (Gee, I'm being flexible today!) Just put a comma after "serving". HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Digmores, something like that line is in the earlier section discussing his pre-parliamentary career, and referred to in subsequent section describing his Political views on Monarchy. I think we therefore don't need to re-refer to his time as head of ACM? Observoz (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

the part about him being press secetary to john hewson and his oppisition to the republic could be put in the political career section as these show his progression towards being an MP. you dont just become a party MP you are involved with people at different stages and organisations that tend to be comparable to the veiws of the party ur trying to join. So u could put all of that stuff in the political carrer section under some sort of subheading. Also that section needs to be restrucutred it doesnt have logical flow (just a passing thought not asking anyone in particular to do it but add it to the list of things to do).Digmores (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Digmores, I agree. But can we deal with that re-arrangement after we have found consensus for above? Does anyone still object to insertion of text as it generally stands now? Observoz (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#Reversion restriction on an article?, this article is now subject to a 1 revert per 24-hour period per editor restriction. The only exception for ordinary editors will be reversion of clear vandalism. Admins and above are not subject to the restriction - this is to enable them to deal with any problems that may arise without the worry of the restriction. I envisage the restriction lasting until the underlying issue of the election of the Opposition Leader is resolved. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Asylum seekers

I propose 'Asylum seekers' as a new sub-heading underneath 'Political views'. Here's the text:

Abbott favours a return to the Howard Government policy known as the Pacific Solution, which involves Australia-bound asylum seekers being processed in other countries instead. He would also bring back the temporary protection visa, and turn back refugee-carrying boats from Australian waters if neccessary.(The Australian)

Abbott accused the government of lacking compassion by encouraging asylum seekers to risk their lives trying to reach Australian shores,(ABC) and said his policy would first involve rehabilitation of relations with other countries in the region: "The next Coalition government will swiftly begin negotiations with foreign countries to ensure that there is offshore processing available in those countries should Christmas Island be full."(The Australian)

The Indonesian government questioned the viability of the plan, and dismissed it as "election fever" rhetoric.(The Australian) The Greens described Abbott's revival of the Pacific Solution as a "cruel and evil" policy, "harking back to the harshest parts of John Howard's refugee regime" and "chasing a xenophobic vote."(ABC) Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser cited Abbott's asylum seeker policy as one of the reasons he quit the Liberal Party, saying a television advertisement promoting the policy by depicting Australia as being inundated by refugees was a “throwback to a racist past, and not just for the Liberal Party but for Australia”.(The Times)

OK. That's it. Any changes? Additions?--Lester 00:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are the official policies of the federal Liberal Party, and not just Abbott's views. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Parties have many policies. Most are never publicised because the media and the masses find them boring. The asylum seeker policy is one that Abbott has personally chosen to make a major issue of. It's controversial and big news. Worth a mention. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Abbott's view that led to the policy, as many Liberal Party MPs complained they were not consulted before the policy was released. We can add that too, if necessary.--Lester 01:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the proposed text makes it sound like this is Abbott's view alone, when it's actually Liberal Party policy. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Nick-D on this one. It relates either to the Liberal Party of Australia, to the upcoming election or even to the Rudd Government (as an opposed point of view) but not to this biography IMO. Orderinchaos 01:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

should look to see if anyone supports his stance in order to ensure NPOVDigmores (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, parties have many policies. It's the choice a leader makes to emphasise some more than others that defines that leader. That this is big news in Australia right now says more about Abbott than it does about the Liberal Party or Kevin Rudd. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way, this policy would never have happened under Malcolm Turnbull. We can produce refs to say Abbott did not consult with the party on it, so that part is proven. Abbott is now the one selling the policy. It's a major plank in his election platform. How can it possibly not be relevant to Tony Abbott? It's his policy. We don't have a separate "Current Liberal Party Policy" article.--Lester 02:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs in this article, but the text needs to make it clear that it's Liberal Party policy - as written it suggests that this is a "plan" Abbott alone is personally advocating, when it's actually policy supported by most members of the parliamentary party. Nick-D (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest some alertaions (for succinctity) and some background and definition of Abbott's critique of Rudd:

VERSION 2: (ammended at Observoz (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC))

Abbott has linked changes to asylum policies by the Rudd Government with increases in the number of unauthorised boat arrivals since 2007. Abbott accused Kevin Rudd of ineptitude and hypocrisy on the issue of boat arrivals, particularly during the Oceanic Viking affair of October 2009, and said "John Howard found a problem and created a solution. Kevin Rudd found a solution and has now created a problem".

As Opposition Leader, Abbott has said that a Coalition Government: may restore "offshore processing" of asylum seekers (in a manner similar to the Pacific Solution introduced by the Howard Government); would reinstate the temporary protection visa, and would turn back refugee-carrying boats from Australian waters if neccessary.(The Australian)

Abbott has said the government lacks "compassion" in that it "encourages" asylum seekers to risk their lives trying to reach Australia(ABC) and said his policy would first involve rehabilitation of relations with other countries in the region (The Australian)

Abbott's position has been criticised by the Australian Greens as 'xenophobic', and by former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who quit the party soon after Abbott became leader saying it had become 'too conservative' in recent years.(The Times) Observoz (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The introduction must avoid any suggestion that the Rudd government's changes to processing policies CAUSED the increase in the number of boat arrivals. That is not proven in any way at all. We could write that Abbott claims that the Rudd govt caused the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

remove the bit about fraser he was never a true member of the party talk to anyone affiliated with it and ull find they have held him in contempt for at least the last 20 years. Also he has said that the party has become too conservative many times over the last 20 years. Secondly try and avoid using words such as accused try to find neutral words such as claimed or said, u would be suprised how many edit wars breakout over such things and "technically" it isnt NPOV. Digmores (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When you say about Fraser "...they have held him in contempt for at least the last 20 years", I guess that kind of proves his point. He is, however, the second last person associated with (an alternative to calling him a member ;-) ) the Liberal Party to have been PM. Whether people now think him an ageing nutcase or not, that obviously gives him some right to have his opinion heard.

I agree with you about words like accused. Avoid at all costs. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have ammended text based on comments above to a) avoid suggestion in text that rudd caused increase b) replace 'accuse' with 'said' c) added "in recent years" to the Fraser remark to show it has been long in coming. I also noticed a link to MV Oceanic Viking which could enhance text.Observoz (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Greens criticism is completely unremarkable as they are an opposing party. Fraser criticism is notable, since he is a former Liberal PM (and the only PM since WWII to actually have a different asylum seeker policy to the rest, if you ask me). This text: "may restore "offshore processing" of asylum seekers" is unacceptable to me since it is WP:CRYSTAL ball gazing, and the Rudd govt is already currently processing illegal immigrants on Christmas Island. I'd actually oppose this section in its entirety, except that, unlike Kevin Rudd, we have no equivalent of a Rudd Government article. Most Liberal MPs support these policies, except for a few like Petro Georgiou (who I think is out of parliament now anyway), so the fact that Abbott supports them isn't particularly notable in a personal sense. I've got a vague memory that Abbott may have repeated Howard's "we will decide who comes here and the circumstances in which they come"? If so, that quote could almost replace all the text so far suggested - I don't think it gets much more laconic. BTW I think it is hilarious that anyone actually thinks it a complete coincidence that boat people numbers increased at the same time the ALP softened our illegal immigration policies. --Surturz (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rather than being one of those nasty lefties you mentioned below (don't think much of either major party really), I'm a mathematically oriented person who loves to point out that an apparent correlation between two variables does not automatically mean that one of them caused the other. Many other factors are involved. HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

abbott became leader a fair amount of time before fraser quit the party saying it had become too conservative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't he quit because Turnbull got rolled? --Surturz (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

...by Abbott!--Lester 20:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

should find some sources just from memory i think that fraser quit from the party fairly recently but i could be wrong meh, google it, suppose.Digmores (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fraser quit a few months ago, but it only became public a few days ago.--Lester 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bomb thrower

I would like to remove this recently added text: "When Abbott was promoted to Cabinet in 2000, the Opposition described him as a "bomb thrower", while Prime Minister Howard described him as an affective performer with an endearing style". I don't think "bomb thrower" is a well-known epithet for him, it is simply one of many insults that the ALP have used against him. I also do not see the point of the Howard quote, except perhaps to 'balance' the opposition's quote. His reputation as a robust parliamentary performer is covered elsewhere. I am of the opinion that criticisms by an opposing party do not belong in WT:AUSPOL WP:BLPs, since it is generally unremarkable that the opposing party criticises a pollie. It is also unremarkable that Howard praised one of his own colleagues. Criticisms from the same side of politics, or plaudits from the opposing side could be notable. --Surturz (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That view makes a lot of sense. Highly predictable comments on the political front don't really belong in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, not much of it belongs on Wiki. GJGardner (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote should stay in, though maybe worded differently, and maybe in a different position. It is a very common description of Abbott and his provocative style. Not only from the Labor party, but also from Liberal Party members. To prove that the phrase is used often, only 3 days ago, John Hewson was quoted in the Fairfax press as saying "He throws a bomb and then he moves on, or if it blows up too badly, he apologises".(SMH) It's neither complimentary nor derogatory. I think most would recognise that Abbott has a provocative style.--Lester 20:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Abbott's not just called provacative and robust, he's also called "charming" on a regular basis - and every close examination of him in the media has brought this out, and so should this article - that is the intention of including the two remarks "bombthrower" and "endearing style" together. The form can be adapted, but the point of "duality" is important Observoz (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a nickname - as evidenced by the fact that you can't put it in the article without the inverted commas around it. It's not even his main nickname, nor an interesting nickname. The defenders of the text seem to suggest it should go in because it succintly describes his debating style. Now maybe Lester and Observoz think name-calling is an acceptable alternative to properly written text, but I reckon it is just lazy editing. --Surturz (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who said it was his nickname? The term 'bomb thrower' was not his nickname, and never was. However it is a term that crops up quite often to describe him, the most recent of which was John Hewson 3 days ago.--Lester 03:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Howard-o-meter

Well, at the time of the block there were 12 mentions of John Howard in the article. There are now 14. How many mentions of John Howard will the lefty editors manage to sneak in to this article by the election? Only time will tell! --Surturz (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If its an issue we could trim 3 or 5 of them. 1 change would cause one removal as it is the title of a section, in any case the title of the section Member of Parliament and Minister in Howard Government seems a little long and clunky and culd be shortened and made more to the point.

Digmores (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A person as significant as Howard leaves a huge legacy. Abbott's rise is part of that. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

the main point being made is that there is mention of howard where it is not necessary or could be ommitted total removal is not being proposed but is really necessary to mention twice in the same article a fact Digmores (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

actually my point is that all the trots will be sticking in as much Greens and John Howard stuff as they can into auspol articles from now until the election ;) their twisted version of carrot and stick I spose --Surturz (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we PLEEEEEASE drop the name calling? HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. He's the only one working in good faith. See above. --Merbabu (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In politics, when you start talking about policy, there are always 2 sides. Especially when they are major policies, like immigration or economics. They are hot topics. When an article mentions a major hot-topic policy, it should always mention the opposing side. Same goes for the other side of politics. For example, Rudd and his mining tax. He says it will spread the mining wealth among the Australian people. Great. The opposing side says it will decrease wealth by encouraging mining companies to go elsewhere. You put both in. Neither gets stated as fact. Each view gets attributed to the side or person that made it. It's not a matter of being "lefty" "green" or a right-winger. The same should be done with all political articles, otherwise you may as well have the politician write his/her own article.--Lester 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I often see MORE than two sides in politics. It's the media and the mainstream parties that like to keep it down to a simple two. Howard was PM and leader of Abbott's party, hence his guiding light, for 80% of the past 13 years. There would be something very odd going on if his style and legacy did not have a huge impact on Abbott today. Why deny that impact? HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Surturz complains that there are only 14 mentions of Howard in this article. I can see that this number needs to be expanded, as in the John Howard article there are 16 mentions of his predecessor, Malcolm Fraser ;) --Lester 22:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

But this is not politics. This is wikipedia, and wikipedia is not meant to be the battleground that is politics. People have been here long enough to know that despite all our personal bias’ and leanings, we must present information neutrally, they need to stop name calling, stop accusing others of bad faith and generally act more constructively rather than antagonistically and tendentiously. And it shows exactly why you can’t get the content right if you haven’t got the processes right.

As for me, I take some comfort in the fact that certain editors have accused me of left wing bias, a few other certain editors have accused me of right wing bias in my editing, but the vast majority have not accused me of biased editing. --Merbabu (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

the underlying thing is to remove mentions of people, or oganisations where it is not relevent or already has been addressed and to not stack the article with howard this howard that keating this George Bush that. Secondly lester abbott played less of a role in the howard government than howard did in the fraser government also there was alot more contreversy between the 2 leading to more mentions. thirdly just because some one else holds a veiw dosen't mean that, the persons veiw is directly attributable to a dominant person that holds the same or dominante veiw(i speak in general terms for all articles). For example we talk about howard era mandatory detention but keating implmented it. Remembering as always that howard had an influience on abbott but if u say something to that effect source it from a credible source and then it can be added.Digmores (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure about that - Abbott was a senior minister in the Howard administration for almost a decade (Employment then Health), both of which roles were controversial in the sense that those roles have a tendency to be in any government, whilst Howard was Treasurer for six years in Fraser's. Abbott was not in significant conflict with Howard, while Howard was with Fraser, but I'm not seeing why this is an issue - it was his consistent support of Howard which got him where he was. Re mandatory detention, while Keating may have implemented it, it was Howard who exploited it as a political issue. If anything, the problem with this article is not some tally or counter of "mentions of Howard", but a random sort of lopsidedness that tends to inflict articles of this kind where certain events are overstated while the career overall is understated - there should actually be a *lot* more about his time as Minister. And I agree with HiLo and Merbabu that this should not become a battleground - the article already got protected because of that sort of behaviour on the article itself, and if the article's ever to improve, people need to put their prejudices about the topic and each other aside and try and look at this article in a detached, independent manner. Orderinchaos 00:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You've put that all perfectly. Whether Howard or Fraser's influence was greater in the party's respective former leaders' roles is missing the point - either way is irrelevant. The big and recent headline/events once again dominate both the article, it's apparent bias, and the lion's share of discussion, yet the overall career and underlying substantive issues which we should be focussing on are forgotten. --Merbabu (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That was the point i was trying to make even if someone thinks the same thing we should present it as the veiw of the person the article is about. For example Tony Abbott believes da da da. Thats fine as it presents his veiws. However where it gets messy is where u bring in other people such as John Howard as an afterthought that dosent actually add to the infomation that is being presented. for example Tony Abbott believes in da da da which was also held by leading memebers of the howard government. secondly the fact that howard and abbott got along to a large degree means there is less controversy between them, media outlets love contrversy and report on it while the day to day running of the health department though could have been personally defining may not be overally riviting for the majority of the population. The memebers of the howard government are starting to release their diaries or thoughts etc maybe read through those and see wat they think of abbott, as well to look at any biographical books or articles on members of the howard government as they will contain direct and indirect references to abbott as you say he was a senior minister for many years so he is bound to be there. Doing this we would flesh out the rest of his life rather than focusing just on the most current events of his life which are being report in the press. Doing so will prevent WP:RECENT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 07:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merbabu, if there are underlying substantive issues about Abbott, that have been omitted from the article, you and other editors are welcome to add those to the article. If recent issues were newspaper headlines, then that displays public interest in the issue. Recent issues are also easier, because of the popularity of the internet, than earlier parts of Abbott's career. I guess it's a matter of whether Wikipedia should reflect what is in the public interest, or take a more high-brow academic approach. But you can include both! --Lester 08:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

auto archive

should someone set up an auto archive of some kind as it seems that there is quite a lot of discussion about how the article should be written and this talk page is starting to get quite longDigmores (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to auto-archive, but I can manually archive everything above the "Mad Monk" section.. all above there is a couple of years old. --Surturz (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

yeah probly a good idea as this page has grown byy 50% in the byte terms since thursday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Claim of 100,000 abortions is misleading. Abbott's claim is wrong

How valid is it to point out that Tony Abbott is wrong when he says "that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies" every year?

Most of that 100,000 don't "choose". This quote points out the problem....

Tony Abbott has claimed that health insurance statistics show there are 100,000 abortions performed in Australia each year – about one for every three live births. But this figure is misleading. It includes tens of thousands of dilation and curettage (“D and C”) procedures carried out after women “spontaneously abort” – that is, miscarry. Obstetricians say the real abortion figure could be as low as 25,000 because the same Medicare item number is used for all ‘abortions and medical procedures undertaken as a result of miscarriage or foetal death”.

(It's from http://www.mariestopes.com.au/news1/media_coverage/australian_report_abortion_crisis/)

HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The quote is famous, and should stay, regardless of its factual accuracy. Is that counterclaim from a reliable source? Was the counterclaim also reported in a major publication?--Lester 04:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the quote should definitely stay. It is what he said. As for a better source for my figures, I'm sure there would be one, because I've heard the claim before several times. I will keep looking. As for how to present it, I really wasn't sure how Wikipedia could politely point out that a pollie got something wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked NewsBank, and there were a number of references to how Abbott got the figures wrong, although I can't say how significant those references were. However, in relation to other sources:

Dr Molloy said the exact number of abortions was unknown. There were 72,000 items under schedule number 35643 every year, but they included an estimated 20,000 miscarriages a year.

He said the likely figure could be about 52,000 abortions , with some carried out by public hospitals.

Health Minister Tony Abbott and Governor-General Michael Jeffery have cited 100,000 abortions a year.

Wright, Lincoln; Papadakis, Mary. (14 November 2004) "Warning on abortion Women may go underground", Sunday Herald Sun, p 20

and:

The Australian Medical Association yesterday disputed Mr Abbott's figure of 100,000 abortions a year, saying his figures were based on Medicare statistics which included incomplete miscarriages and terminations for medical reasons. AMA obstetrics and gynaecology spokesman Andrew Pesce said incomplete miscarriages happened when a woman partially had lost the pregnancy and tissue had to be cleaned from the uterus.

Terminations for medical reasons included when the women's health was at risk or the baby had a severe abnormality. "It is impossible . . . to interpret how many of those ( abortions ) are for what Tony Abbott and other people would say are terminations of pregnancy and how many are for non-viable pregnancies, which are being surgically treated," he said.

Starick, Paul (10 November 2004) "Moves to end the abortion debate" The Advertiser p 14

Not sure if that's what you're looking for, but they may help. - Bilby (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint about the AMA. I've found on their website an interview transcript with Dr Andrew Pesce, their spokesman on obstetrics and gynaecology. The full transcript is at http://www.ama.com.au/node/1855. It's quite detailed but points out that the 100,000 figure is a total of the number of procedures under two Medicare items, most of which are unlikely to be elective abortions. Elective abortions of healthy foetuses are simply not counted independently in Australia. Still not sure how to or even whether to include this in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are going to have the problem that the exact mix of voluntary, involuntary and non-abortions is unknown in the 100K. All you have are estimates, which dispute Abbott's estimate of 100% voluntary abortions. WP:V is about verifiability, not truth I'm afraid. The safe course is to find a WP:RS that you can use to say "so and so said Abbott was wrong". I think you are going to confuse the text, though - the 100K quote is used to demonstrate his opposition to abortion - the statistic/assertion itself is a side issue. I would interpret your difficulty in finding WP:RS as evidence that the dispute over the 100K statistic was not a particularly significant event in Abbott's career. If the dispute isn't wp:n and you are worried about the misleading statistic being in the article, perhaps a better course would be to remove the statistic and find a different quote to illustrate Abbott's views on abortion?--Surturz (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

+

Pink or blue

User:Lester claims I removed the text about the "pink or blue" gender selection product without mentioning it in the edit summary. This is plainly incorrect, as shown by this diff. I clearly indicate that I removed the text under WP:UNDUE. --Surturz (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Surturz. Your edit summary was correct. I made the error with my edit summary.--Lester 12:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah - warm and fuzzy hugs all around. --Merbabu (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew there was a reason I joined Wiki after all. GJGardner (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Need help typing up a Good Weekend article

I am sure this will be a useful source for the religious views section: "Looking for Mr Right" by Frank Robson, Good Weekend mag., 14-16 April 2006, pp. 23-30. It's been cited half a dozen times in journal articles about the abortion pill debate. Unfortunately it's not available in any databases. I've made plans to scan a copy when I visit the state library later this morning, but there's no way I'm going to type up seven pages of text by myself. Can anybody help? Ottre 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot to say, if we use this offline source to create a "stable" version of the religious views section ahead of the election (Labor is tipped to attack Abbott's comments on religion and politics), naturally it would have to be posted on the talk page for other editors to verify. Ottre 19:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced content

I have a problem with people rapidly deleting referenced content, soon after it is added, without discussion. This is the sort of thing that starts edit wars. It takes significant time and effort for anyone to add referenced content. It's a slap in the face for someone else to just quickly delete it without bothering with the inconvenience of discussing it first. I point to the latest addition by Observoz that was then quickly deleted by Ottre. Maybe Observoz's text could have been reworded to separate what was an Abbott policy and what was his team's policy, but my post here isn't about content. It's about user behaviour. I thought new rules meant thought we had to stop deleting content without first discussing it. Especially content that was just added. But it seems that those new rules are being ignored.--Lester 04:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep defending this Observoz fellow? He's about to be topic banned. It is obvious he spent five minutes looking up these "references" and didn't even bother reading one of the articles cited. Ottre 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not defending anyone. I want everyone to stop this culture of deleting referenced content as soon as it's added. In this case, the 2nd ABC reference seemed to pretty well cover what was said. At least enough for it to be discussed before deletion.--Lester 03:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

He eventually he became a journalist and wrote for The Australian Newspaper - There's no such publication as "The Australian Newspaper" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.195.191 (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert Bump

No mention of the Stephen Colbert's Abbot bump? 124.170.206.135 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)