Talk:Tanya Plibersek

Coming out of nowhere

I'm just wondering what a certain part of this text has to do with the statement:

Tanya Plibersek was criticised by some LGBT groups over Labor's bipartisan actions against the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Despite being married herself, Plibersek told The Sydney Morning Herald...[etc., emphasis is mine]

Her own marital status would only have relevance if she was herself involved in a same-sex relationship. Thus the use of a "despite" clause is incorrectly applied. Cyril Washbrook 10:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Haneef comment

Additionally, I'd question the relevance of this statement: In a July 2007 interview on Meet The Press, Plibersek refused to criticise the Howard government's detention of Mohamed Haneef. Plibersek said the Labor Party "supported the (Howard) Government's actions." The fact is that this matter is outside her portfolio and consequently, she would merely have repeated the party's stance at the time. This shouldn't be a specific personal criticism of her. I'm also removing this, although relevant discussion in reply is welcome. Cyril Washbrook 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cyril. (Link to diff of removed content.) I just read the Gerard Henderson reference provided. It seems Plibersek was interviewed and asked about Haneef. She could have just said "no comment" or "ask the relevant minister", but instead she made a comment about Haneef, despite it being outside her portfolio. Plibersek's comment, as quoted in the reference, seems to support the Howard government's actions on Haneef. Gerard Henderson then points the finger at Plibersek, whom he accuses of being a member of the left, and says it is "historic" for agreeing with Howard. I think that if the words come out of Plibersek's mouth, then it's fair game to quote them, and also any commentary on them. She seems to be taking a high-profile position on a lot of issues, with interviews on Meet The Press, and also her Sydney Morning Herald column. She seems to be turning into a commentator, so should she only be responsible for comments about her own portfolio? I think the previous content on this subject in the article should stand. --Lester 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ministers and shadow ministers have the right to articulate party policy without needing to refer it to "the relevant minister". The fact is that at the time, the Dr Haneef case was highly publicised and dominated the public agenda. Labor had made its stance very clear, and Plibersek made her comment based upon that. There's no indication that she arrived at her response through an informed personal opinion - rather, it was an opinion informed by party policy and party considerations. I feel that the edits should still stand. On another part of your reply, the fact is that ideological commentary regarding "left" and "right" does not necessarily align an issue to a person. Gerard Henderson is a well-known conservative and to accuse Plibersek of being of the left does not increase the direct personal relevance of the Haneef case to her. Cyril Washbrook 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've examined Prester John's subsequent edit after your own restoration of the Dr Haneef comments, and I think it probably strikes the right balance between our differing interpretations of its relevance. Cyril Washbrook 02:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ministers are not public servants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.84.197 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

POV??? Neutrality?

This whole article reads like it was written by her staff. It's got a bland, public-service press release feel to it.165.69.2.1 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rather than criticise an entire article (oh so easy to do), please advise where particular issues are so attention can be brought to them. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what user:165.69.2.1 is referring to. However I seem to remember an older version that said she was heckled at a LGBT rally. Now it just says she marched in a parade.--Lester 03:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that the majority of sources/references quoted in the article are media releases, miniterial statements, and/or extracts from Hansard is the main point that 165.69.2.1 may have been making. I certainly agree that there are parts of the article that look like an ALP advert, to some extent. For example, quoting that Plibersek has raised, three times in Parliament, her views on same sex discrimination is a little over the top. This is especially the case when there is no context, given that (I would assume) her seat of Sydney has the highest concentration of same-sex couples in Australia; and that many voters in her electorate may have differing views to what Plibersek has stated in the media. Another case in point is ref 9 (Housing) takes us straight to the home page of the FACSHIA - Social Housing Initiative. This is a little clumsy, as it provides no critique of the program and the web page is all 'Government speak'. I would be more impressed if we had public commentary or informed debate about the initiative from respected news sources and/or political journals. I'm not too sure of the need for quoting her margin in the 2007 election. Whay is this relevant, unless all margins are quoted, as the author is demonstrating a significant increase/decrease in margin. The fact that the margin increased by 2.12% doesn't really tell me what her margin is right now - or what it was before. Finally, taking us to an Excel file of ABS data on Housing stats is VERY clumsy. From looking at the data, it is not easy for the average user of Wikipedia to determine the stated claim that .... the average First Home buyer home loan increased from $260k (Sept 2008 pre boost) to more than $290k by Dec 2009, at the expiry of the boost.' Jherschel (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and why is Tony Abbott's comment in there about homelessness? How does that relate to Plibersek. It relates to Abbott, and the issues of homelessness, but not her. Jherschel (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

i totally agree, you can spot staffer articals 10 miles away

118.209.141.103 (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's articles. And anyone could come along and contribute to articles in such a way, why would it necessarily be a staffer or anyone from the politics field from that matter...? Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

political positions

one off media comments do not count for WP articles. all politicians have made comments in media on a variety of topics, but we don't list them as a separate subtopic called "political positions". viewpoints that attract ongoing and significant media attention is what we include. the home owner grant increase was not a Plibersek viewpoint but came out of the Federal cabinet economic stimulus, to somehow say this is a political position is stretching it when she is merely delivering as a minister what her cabinet as agreed. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the issue in question, but to say one off media comments by MPs are not suitable for articles is sheer rubbish. Every comment is taken on it's merit. We have many wikipedia guidelines to ensure contributions are suitable for the article... "no one off media comments" isn't one of them. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

as I said if it attracts significant and ongoing attention then it may be worthy of inclusion. We don't include every single statement said to the media especially if it is only reported in one source. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Everything is judged on it's merits. We have things like WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR you know. Timeshift (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

if we included every one off statement made by a politician in the media we would have extremely long articles. WP:IAR should not be used as an excuse for including every single statement. I am also going off the normal format we see for Aust ministers, this article seemed to have selective statements, many comments Plibersek says in the media are simply her party's line. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to include every statement. I'm saying any statement, like any contribution on wikipedia, is judged on it's merits. Timeshift (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Slovene?

In the lead the article states: "Plibersek is the first Slovene to reach the position of a minister in the Australian government." So Plibersek is Slovene, not Australian? Or is she both? Has she ever been a Slovene citizen? She wasn't even born in Slovenia, but in Australia. Catgut (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added the sentence some days ago (she was recognized as such in the Slovenian weekly newspaper Nedeljski dnevnik: "Tanya Pliberšek is the first Slovene minister in the Government of Australia") and have been wondering how to phrase it correctly in the same way as you have, so I hope some consensus will emerge here.

As reported in the interview published in Nedeljski dnevnik, Mrs Plibersek was born in the family a Slovene immigrant who left Yugoslavia. She said (translation is mine): "I first visitied Slovenia when I was four years old, and I think I quickly sensed it. I have visited it many times till now, I'm in love with its nature and architecture, and I say it is my second home, my parents are also in love with Slovenia, with its hills, its wonderful landscape. And my mother loves to see her brother and other relatives. And you know, of what kind is also this contact with their homeland? My mother still likes to bake nut roll and my children like Slovenian žganci and 'knedli'. Of course there are many images and books in our appartement, my cousin Jana sends me Slovenian records and children watch Slovenian cartoons. I want my children to be well aware of the character of the homeland of their grandparents. It is also important that they understand its language and culture, they don't speak Slovene well yet, but they're struggling. Obviously they have themselves started to recognize this is important for their future life."[1]

I don't think Mrs Plibersek ever was a Slovenian citizen. According to the Slovene political magazine Mladina, she is an Australian citizen ("ima avstralsko državljanstvo").[2]. Nevertheless, it's obvious she values highly the country and the culture of her parents and tries actively to preserve the connections with her roots and also educates her children regarding this. Per Talk:Slovene language, I've used Slovene rather than Slovenian to emphasize her ethnicity over nationality. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate term is Slovene Australian, and I've tweaked the article accordingly. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is an appropriate term to describe her ancestry, but I doubt the relevance and neutrality of describing her as the "first Slovene Australian to reach the position of a minister" in the article's lead. Any narrowly enough defined group can be "first" in another narrowly defined scope. The number of Australians with Slovene ancestry is below 0.1%, while the rate of ministers per capita is somewhere around 0.0001%. This is not comparable to "first female minister" which relates to a social group defined by gender representing 50% of the population. So while being "first Slovene Australian minister" might be a good newspaper headline in Slovenia, IMO is trivial to her notability as Australian politician. Placing this in the lead gives undue weight to her ancestry which played no role in her political career, and therefore I think is inappropriate. --Elekhh (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for improving the article! Best Catgut (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Nick-D for correcting the article. I don't Mrs Plibersek's ancestry is trivial. She has influenced the Slovenia-Australia relations. She is tightly connected with the Slovenian community and the former Slovenian Foreign Minister Rupel highlighted the contribution of the Slovenian community in Australia citing her as an example.[3][4][5] I think it's a pity that the page Australia–Slovenia relations is currently only a redirect and will try to remedy this. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the Slovene articles, and don't see anything of substance in the English one. Is there any single example to demonstrate any notable influence Tanya had on Australia-Slovenia relations? --Elekhh (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Google translate does a fairly good job. It just says that Mrs Plibersek is tightly connected with the Slovene community. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Predecessor/Successor in infobox

We have them in all Australian MP articles but a user feels that this sole article can be different and not have predeccessors/successors in the infobox. If this is to be changed then it needs to be done through proper channels and not for one article only. The changes made, at the least, require a consensus before they can be re-added. The onus is on the contributor with the new text to gain consensus for disputed edits. I have reverted the change. Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the predecessor and successor fields from the infobox as it made it completely out of proportion (almost as long as the article) contrary to its role of providing a succinct summary of the article per WP:IBT. I don't see any reason why to obscure the more relevant information about the subject by providing extensive see also type links to multiple articles of limited relevance. Of course the same applies to other MPs as well. If this has been discussed before please indicate where has been a consensus established for always including predecessor/successor fields, contrary to the main function of the infobox. --Elekhh (talk) 06:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a discussion. But this is one of 226 current Aus Fed MP articles and you are making a unilateral disputed change with no consensus support. Please form some at a more suitable page. Timeshift (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view you did "unilateral disputed change" as well. A more friendly and collaborative tone would be welcomed. Which page do you consider more appropriate to discuss the content of the infobox in this article? --Elekhh (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A disputed change being one from the status quo. Consensus is required for a disputed change, not a disputed status quo. Perhaps a better page would be Wikiproject Australian politics talk page. Timeshift (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you assuming that the status quo represents consensus even if hasn't been discussed? Is the first to edit a page define consensus? Can't follow that logic, but I note that you haven't replied to my argument in support of my edit. --Elekhh (talk) 11:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If a change is disputed, consensus is required to move away from the status quo, not the other way around. I've already made it clear why it belongs there. Timeshift (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand that for you consistency of content between all Australian MP infoboxes is more important than the Purpose of an infobox. I invited feedback from the relevant WikiProjects. --Elekhh (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My consistency of content between all Australian MP infoboxes is more important than successors and predecessors at all. Either way i'm now not too fussed, but years ago I actually didn't like them either. Now i'm used to them. And consistency is of very high importance. Thanks for allowing a consensus discusion to take place. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Timeshift is absolutely correct in this. There is no good reason to remove prede/successor information from just one MP. This is something that needs discussion - wide discussion - before being implemented. I would be astonished if any consensus for removal was found. --Pete (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally find that following the link to a particular position (division, ministry, etc) which always includes the chronologic list of all those who held that position, provides a far better historic overview than predecessor/successor fields. I am not particularly fussed either when these fields appear once, but when there are many (as in this case), the problem becomes acute, as the infobox is diluted to the extent that is not a summary any more (which was its original purpose). Maybe a way forward would be to not use these fields for ministry positions (non-elected, faster changing, more often changes to the scope of each ministry). That would keep most infoboxes unaltered, retain consistency and address the most acute problem. --Elekhh (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the best place to discuss the issue, nor is it appropriate to edit-war over one article. --Pete (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I'm unfussed as to whether it's in the infobox or in the footer of the article (where more information can be stored without bunging up the page margins), but I agree with Timeshift in this particular case. Orderinchaos 10:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. To some extent I was acting based on WP:IAR, but I acknowledge the conservative consensus regarding change. I will not pursue it any further on this page. --Elekhh (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)