Talk:Nicola Roxon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Nicola Roxon is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.

/Archive 1


Archived[edit]

I have archived the discussion as was suggested by a number of users, while there may be some information that isnt relevant to or the result of recent events I think its best to start all discussion fresh. Gnangarra 01:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Australians of Jewish descent[edit]

I agree with Gnan's revert and believe this cat should remain off the article per previous discussions. Roxon's paternal grandparents are jewish, I do not believe this should make her eligible for the cat. Infact I am against the cat altogether as it's too ambiguous, I would not want my grandparents religion/heritage to be declared my descent. Timeshift (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See the AWNB thread about Fooians and Booians where consensus seemed to mitigate against such categories. Orderinchaos 01:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Also agreed. Two of her grandparents were Jewish. The other two presumably weren't - were they (say) Catholics? Should we create a category called ""People of possibly Catholic descent"? How about "People who are not Jewish but who may have some relatives who were Jewish if you go back far enough"? Sarcasm aside the category is too ambiguous to provide any information about the people within it and is against the previously-mentioned Fooian/Booian consensus. I am mystified at the apparent obsession for attempting to label Nicola Roxon Jewish when there are sources in the article making clear she isn't. We had an interminable talk-page discussion on this issue earlier this year. Surely we don't need to revisit this every month or so? Euryalus (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

election debate - is it really notable?[edit]

Roxon made headlines during the 2007 federal election campaign when, on 31 October 2007, Health Minister Tony Abbott arrived half an hour late for a televised debate. After apologising on behalf of the absent party to the audience of media and health industry figures, Ms Roxon had the debate to herself and made light of the situation by stating that her staff felt she did a good impersonation of Abbott and could play his part. When Abbott did arrive, he swore at her when she said he could have been on time if he had wanted to.[1][2]

Is this really notable? It seems a bit unencyclopedic to me. --Surturz (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, it's probably the one thing many Australians would remember her most for. It's cited, and factual. Orderinchaos 06:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Would they? I'm not disputing its inclusion on WP:V, but on WP:N. The event seems trivial to me... one politician made fun of another, the other swore back... is this the stuff of an encyclopaedia? More particularly, the event says more about Tony Abbott than it does about Roxon - the event does nothing to describe her views or personality. Except, perhaps, that she can make a joke. Does it really belong in this article, rather than in Tony Abbott or Australian federal election, 2007? --Surturz (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It belongs in the latter as a campaign note, but not really the former. I'm curious as to what ground on N could be raised against it - it received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources, including front pages in numerous Australian papers and headline news on TV bulletins, and in campaign events was only really overtaken in coverage by the Lindsay pamphlet scandal. In terms of the Roxon article specifically it goes to her performance as a shadow minister during an election campaign in which she was a key part of the alternative government being put to the people. Orderinchaos 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
None of the points you make as to notability are verified by the references provided in the article [1] [2]. Both references are really about Tony Abbott, not Roxon. Her performance as shadow minister is not mentioned in either reference... nor is her performance mentioned in this WP article. I think there are strong grounds for deleting the text. --Surturz (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you're just trolling because you didn't get your way at Talk:Kevin Rudd - it's interesting that you've tried to start spot fires in four locations today, the only thing in common being that I have edited or mediated there at some point. If you spent as much time researching and editing as you did wasting the time of others, Wikipedia would be much the better for it. If I was a neutral admin watching this I would already have warned you per WP:DE by now. I'm really tired of fighting mindless ideologues of the far left and far right, I intend on getting back to my Tasmanian electorates. Orderinchaos 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the paragraph being here - it was a medium-level election issue and Roxon's highest-profile public appearance during the campaign. On whether the debate detail should be in other articles and not this one - the issue is already included in both the Tony Abbott and 2007 election pages, though with different wording according to context. There seems little reason to delete it from one of these three locations while retaining it at the others - it was a significant event in both Abbott's and Roxon's political lives, and was notable in the context of the election campaign though eclipsed by the later pamphlet scandal.
The real problem with this article is it seems like time stopped in November 2007. We have nothing at all on Roxon as a Minister, even though she is more heavily documented than ever before. Seeing as we're all here debating the debate point, we should fix the total absence of more recent content. Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the case with most Rudd Labor minister articles actually. Timeshift (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
For want of anything more notable, I have added a short sentence on the recent 'blood tax' debate. I think we should start a new 'minister' section, but I'm not sure what title to use. --Surturz (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I agree it should be toned down. 2 verses 1 so am editing. Timeshifl (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2008 onwards[edit]

there is nothing in this article about Roxon post 2007...surely this is the most important of her political career as a minister? LibStar (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


Atheism[edit]

I think this is very notable. She is the only real public atheist in australian politics and it is important to her. Spotsdoes11 (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Only? According to the articles that brought this to public attention, there were three - including Greg Combet and Chris Bowen. Each person's religion or otherwise is of course important to them... notability is about whether it is important to their biography, and it's not as if Nicola Roxon has in the public arena taken on the religion debates, threatened to ban religion in her portfolios or any such - just seems to be a largely quietly-held personal belief. Orderinchaos 00:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, only three Australian politicians publicly came out and endorsed atheism. That is notable, or just as notable as the confrontation with Abbott. She is in the public debate as one of three politicians advocating atheism. Looking at Abbott and Catholicism, I think this deserves an entry. I am not sure, but looking at the edit history you have banned a lot of users who edited this page. I'm concerned as in my experience I am simply a new user. Maybe it is best to get another opinion. Spotsdoes11 (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

She is not "advocating" atheism, the paper asked her, so if anything, it was advocating. I think that newbies who know how to use ref tags from the first edit who seem myopically interested in one tiny aspect of one article, especially given your upload of a copyrighted image claiming it as your own, usually turn out to be something else, but I'm reserving judgment. Will certainly be curious to see how this pans out - my hunches about socks usually prove to be correct when I get them checked. Orderinchaos 03:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is not constructive. I'd appreciate constructive comments please. Banning legitimate users, insulting 'newbies', calling people 'socks' when they are not...please be constructive. She was one of three politicians to advocate atheism. Considering the wiki article for Abbott has mention of his catholicism; these three individuals should have a line about atheism. Spotsdoes11 (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would respectively suggest that they are different. For a long we have had editors claiming that she was Jewish and very few sources to support that or anything else. In my non-WP life I can understand that. I am an atheist, an ALP member in her constituency and I knew her. I do not think her atheism is anything like Abbott's catholicism. However, it is all mute. There are lots of references to Abbott's catholicism and only the one to Nicola's atheism. We follow the sources. It is not that notable. I just happen to know the sources are right. Go and edit something else. All your edits are about Nicola. Why? --Bduke (Discussion) 10:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I started adding sourced material on this site with the intention of adding to other ones. I was then banned for no reason whatsoever. I am concerned that one user is maintaining this site and getting rid of other opinions. I have every right to edit this page. It seems every comment here is against 'newbie's editing.

I disagree, considering the text discusses the fact she was a jewish refugee family it is appropriate that her religion is mentioned at least once. It is accurate and sourced. This is the same for another site so it should be the same for this one. As far as I can see, there is no new information since 2007. Looking at the history, it seems that all entries were reverted since then. Spotsdoes11 (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Her religion is mentioned at least once. The infobox states that she is an atheist and it is sourced. There is nothing more to add. That source was the press trying to get politicians to state that they were atheist after the World Atheists Convention. Nicola Roxon, along with others, so stated, but I know of no other sources that could allow us to expand on her views. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

added atheism as per Greg Combet et. al. It's very rare to see atheists as mp's so it is notable ur personal experiences are not sufficient to remove. 202.174.225.208 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not very rare to see atheists as mp's. This is not the USA. She is not one of three. We do not know. The source did not ask of members of parliament. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

source asked all. she is only one of three in parliament who pub. say atheist. so she is only one of 3 pub. atheists. is same for all wiki entries. There is no problem for the other three only this one. reading through seems harsh edit war. good faith is asked for. 202.174.225.208 (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, the source does not support this. The press asked members of cabinet and shadow cabinet not the whole parliament. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Also atheism is hardly "rare" - I can think of five current or state politicians in WA alone who were openly atheist, and there's one prominent non-cabinet Senator as well who wasn't asked by this particular newspaper survey. Orderinchaos 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
...And welcome back. The only reason I couldn't block (and for that matter, allowed an unblock), was we didn't have proof positive that you were the former editor Bruce99999, but you've been kind enough to provide us with that inside just 48 hours. Orderinchaos 03:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Rebecca please explain your revision in the discussion. On wiki atheism is categorised as a valid entry for the religion section. Incogfrig (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Evidence? WWGB (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the category is for the individual's religion. She is an atheist. The categories are there to guide the encyclopaedia to provide information to the public. This allows people to reference categories. Particularly relevant in politics. Among a number of things is to allow people to do searches. I found this entry because of listening to the radio and there is a religion in politics debate. I wanted to know who is an atheist in the debate and who is religious. Also Euthanasia is a big issue and as health minister it is good to know what religion she is. It only adds to the encyclopaedia not detracting from it. Look at the entries for politics around the world. Religion is a big thing in Australian politics. Incogfrig (talk)

I smell socks. Orderinchaos 13:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You are being very rude to me for my first ever entry. That is not very nice considering I added information that is present for many other politics on the encyclopaedia. Incogfrig (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I deal with newbies all the time, I'm used to the sorts of helpful edits they try to make and the way they engage. You're simply an old, banned editor back for some more under a new guise, so I have no intention of wasting any time on you. Orderinchaos 14:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


What are you on about? You are being very rude and not explaining why my comment was wrong? A heap of similar pages list atheist?? Incogfrig (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. WWGB (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
See notice on user's talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bruce99999. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Joe (sorry, forgot to note it here!) The sad part is that this BLP is the target of a rather obsessive person who has been trying to introduce stuff about Nicola Roxon's alleged religion or lack of it for the best part of 4 years. They became particularly active after the 2007 election and a number of others and myself wasted considerable time dealing with the user's concerns, only to find out that the user was simultaneously, under a different account, messing around with BLPs related to the Eurovision song contest and certain UK and Melbourne late night radio announcers. In dealing with that person I gained a fair amount of insight into how they operate, as well as a reasonable amount of technical information. So when I see them back again, I know almost right away and don't even give them the time of day - it's the best way to operate with these sorts, as attention is what they thrive on. Orderinchaos 15:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Excluding the socks, it seems the consensus is that listing "Atheist" as this person's religion both lacks WP:RS and WP:NOTE. Am I mistaken? I'm rv'ing a recent change adding that appellation back to the infobox. JoeSperrazza (talk)

I am strongly of the view that Atheism is NOT a religion. It is, in fact, the antithesis of religion. It should not appear in the religion field of the Infobox. That field in itself is problematic, encouraging as it does simplistic, one word entries for what are often quite complex views. If we had a reliable source where Roxon's views on religion were discussed in some detail, that information could be included in the article, but a one word Infobox entry of Atheism is just wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013[edit]

Nicola Roxon announced her resignation on 2 February (Australian time) not 1 February. The link to the date used as the source for the entry will confirm this! Cyberia 15 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks. Correction has been made. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Website update[edit]

First external link should be updated from http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/biography.asp?id=83K to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=83K 58.6.131.50 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)