Talk:Brendan Nelson

"Arrogant and Pompous"

The problem with "arrogant and pompous" is that firstly, while probably true, IMO it's not a widely and generally-held view on Nelson (thus requiring it to be attributed), and secondly, the article implies that this perception is what is or what would be preventing him acceding to the Liberal leadership, and I don't think there's any evidence of that. There's any number of reasons why Nelson is not leader.

I don't see why we need to attribute his failure to attain the leadership position to anything in particular. Perhaps the criticism could be placed somewhere else in the article, or in reference to some specific event.

In any case, I didn't appreciate the no-summary revert. Surely, the text isn't inviolable? Lacrimosus 04:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not a widely held view? I would dispute that. Do a Google search for "Brendan Nelson" arrogant, or "Brendan Nelson" pompous, and see what comes up. Would like twenty or forty sources for that? However, I think it's widely held enough that that isn't necessary.

While I'm inclined to agree about claiming that it's not the reason he's not leader (as much as IMHO it's right, political speculation isn't our place, and thus, I don't think we should be suggesting exactly why), what other reason is there? Ambivalenthysteria 13:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly, the first ten or so that I found were all copied versions of this article :). At any rate, I probably should have been more specific earlier - is it a widely-held view within the liberal party? That, after all is where it's most important (I agree entirely with it personally myself as well).

As for other reasons for not being leader, well there are a couple. The biggest factor is usually luck and opportunity. Any potential Nelson bid would have to get past three main contenders, who are the main contenders by virtue chiefly of their seniority. The second big factor is Nelson's position at the "wet" side of the Liberal spectrum, currently not a good place to be, numbers-wise. Thirdly, he's not been able to make friends effectively in the Liberal caucus - which *may* be because he's arrogant, and it may be because he's just not a good lobbyist. Are we in a good position to judge? I still think "lacks the requisite qualities" better reflects our knowledge of what is a counter-factual situation anyway. Passing judgement on his lack of success doesn't really increase the informational quality of the article.Lacrimosus 13:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Arrogant and pompous" removed for want of a source

I removed "arrogant and pompous" because the statement had no source. If someone can find a political observer saying on the record, "Nelson is too arrogant and pompous to become the Prime Minister", then by all means, add it to the article. Otherwise, it's just weasel words.

Also, being pompous and arrogant has never stopped anyone from becoming an Australian Prime Minister. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, forcing -> allowing was oh-too-predictable for a libertarian ;) Kewpid 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What a slur on poor Joe Lyons, the least arrogant and least pompous man ever to hold public office in Australia. Adam 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Nelson

This sentence is unsourced and absurd, and should be deleted:

He has been criticized for his continued use of the title "Dr.", despite the fact that he is not a practicing physician (and has not been one for many years). However the custom in Australia is a lifelong attribution of this honorific title, in the same manner that those who hold a Ph.D. maintain the honorific throughout their lives.

He is a licensed medical practitioner and perfectly entitled to be styled "Dr," regardless of whether he is currently practising. The analogy with PhDs is false (and in any case in Australia PhDs are always styled "Dr"). I have never seen this criticism made by anyone. Adam 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed Niveam (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Sorry, but this is incorrect. Where is the evidence that GPs keep the title "Dr"? I understand that they would if they had a doctorate, such as an MD, but Nelson does not. 2. Where is the evidence that he is a currently licensed medical practitioner? My understanding is that doctors have to be maintaining a certain number of hours per year which Nelson is not. 3. If the above two don't float your boat, then consider this. Exactly how many of the following profiles refer to their subject as "Mister" or "Mr"? John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Alexander Downer, Malcolm Turnbull, Wayne Swan, Peter Costello. What does Wikipedia say about consistency? My suggestion, given that the first two points are contentious and that the third is a lay down misere is to remove all reference to "Dr" unless and until it becomes de rigeur to refer to Howard, Turnbull, Rudd et al as "mr".203.217.82.96 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Support for ID

Would the article benefit from a sentence about his support for Intelligent Design?PiCo 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If a reliable source is cited, and it is written in a NPOV manner, I suppose so. Andjam 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353386917.html ("The Age" newspaper) states "The controversial theory of "intelligent design" has won the qualified backing of Education Minister Brendan Nelson, who says it should be taught in schools alongside evolution if that is the wish of parents." Woah! Thank goodness he's not in government 1dragon (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Current Event" tag necessary?

After Nelson was elected leader of the Liberal Party, a "Current Event" tag was placed at the top of the page. Is this really necessary? It's sort of a one-fact event, that he was elected leader. I don't think there will be more detail to emerge that's notable for the article. A tag that indicates that things may change rapidly is a bit unnecessary, unless someone thinks the Liberal party will rapidly change its leader again very soon  :) --Lester 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No way should it be there. The event is over; he's leader; everyone in Federal Liberal has stated their 100% support. End of story.--DreamsReign (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Brother's death - 1995 or 1990?

The SMH article says Philip Nelson died in 1995, but this news.com article says 1990. Anybody have a more-reliable source to confirm which one is correct? --210.10.130.117 09:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll point out that the news.com.au article is at least partly wrong. It says, "Dr Nelson's younger brother, Philip, died of AIDs aged 34 in 1990"; but if he was 34 and he died in 1990, then he could not have been younger than Brendan. (Also it's "AIDS" not "AIDs" of course). Peter Ballard 11:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Nelson saying that he never voted liberal in his life

Is there any reason why people are against its inclusion? --58.172.249.40 14:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's really irrelevant and it adds nothing to the article. Lots of politicians change parties although, in this case, Nelson wasn't even a politician when he decided to swap from Labor to Liberal. I don't see the relevance of his age either. --AussieLegend 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's interesting and worth inclusion. But for such a comment, a date is important. So it needs a proper, dated, reference, not an undated youtube video with the comment "when he was clearly middle aged", whatever that means. i.e. it needs to say something like, "Nelson said in an interview in 1992 that he had never voted Liberal...". Peter Ballard 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it is relevant given the fact that he said he never voted liberal and than became the leader of the federal liberal party. Many politicians change parties, but that is part of their biography. Imagine if Billy Hughes's article did not mention the fact that he was a member of several parties. Maybe its inclusion in its present form needs help, but I dont know when it was exactly from, except that its presentation was on channel 2. I dont think that lack of knowledge of its origin should validate its exclusion. --58.172.249.40 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Nelson had changed parties is already in the article. The newsbite adds nothing to the article. --AussieLegend 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's cropped up in quite a few interviews that he's done. I think it's worth a very quick mention. Slac speak up! 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This interview is relevant. He was demonstrating against Paul Keating at a public rally at a bookship in Toorak. It happened four days before the 1993 federal election. He was Federal Vice-President of the AMA at the time. It's on record that he voted Liberal in 1987. He joined the Labor Party in 1988 and stayed a member through to possibly as late as 1994, but he nevertheless voted Liberal in 1990 and 1993 (again according to his own testimony). He had also been considering seeking Labor pre-selection for a winnable seat during this period. For whatever reasons, that didn't happen, and he subsequently joined the Liberal Party. Seems he was terribly confused about which party he wanted to support and/or be a member of. If he could have got Labor preselection, he might well have been the PM now instead of Rudd, arguing the Labor case just as strongly as he's now arguing the Liberal case. That the question keeps on getting resurrected 14 years after the event suggests that observers think it says a lot about him. -- JackofOz 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is more relevant, and a much more appropriate reference, than what is essentially a looped, two second newsbite but I still think it's a trivial matter that isn't worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It's just something that the press has latched on to because it's good for effect, not because it's news. It really reminds me of Elton John's Candle in the Wind: "Even when you died, Oh the press still hounded you, All the papers had to say, Was that Marilyn was found in the nude".

I don't think he was confused at all about which party he wanted to join. He obviously wanted to get into parliament and was willing to do what it took to get there. Many politicians are like that. I also don't think that the issue "keeps on getting resurrected". It's really only appeared now because he's opposition leader and somebody has been digging for negative things to say about him, as they did with Howard (A GST willl never form part of our policies), Keating (L.A.W.law tax cuts) and Hawke (By 1990 no Australian child will live in poverty!). --AussieLegend 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact was introduced in a very unencyclopedic way:

He once said that he had "never voted liberal in (his) life" when he was clearly no spring chicken[1].

Taken from this diff. Auroranorth (!) 07:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an article about the incident here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22890189-2,00.html

I think that is an adequate reference.

Sonnybillyboys (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Opportunism

I think a little more could be made of Nelson's political opportunism p- the switch from Labor to Liberal motivated by nothing b=deeper than the desire to further his political career, the support of Intelligent design reversed when it became clear that it was a vote-loser... I wonder if the man has ever had a motive in his life other than the promotion of his personal ambitions? 203.189.134.3 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Validity/security of Nelson's election as Lib leader

Is is worthwhile adding a sentence or two based on this report of the doubbts surrounding Nelson's election as Lib leader? PiCo (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

I think there needs to be more information added to his personal life. One particular area of interest may be his religion, I'm guessing he is a Christian but I dont have detailed knowledge. Kevin Rudd, his opponent, has an entire section titled "Religious Views" in his article- surely this deserves inclusion. Niveam (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm trying to news.google search the article I was reading but can't find it, does anyone have the article(s) indicating Nelson is more anti-apology than he previously was due to pressure from the conservatives in the party room who backed him for the leadership over Turnbull? Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was about 10 years ago that Nelson supported the apology. Then again, he was also a member of the labor party tooLester 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as I don't like the guy myself I thought it was pretty obvious that it was media speculation, trying to pressure him into it.124.177.66.44 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What made it "pretty obvious"? Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he caved in. Timeshift (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Nelson has done 2 backflips on the sorry saga. Ten years ago he supported it. In January 2008 he emphatically said he did not support an apology. Now he supports it again. Crazy. Also, his opposition to "sorry" was the reason he won the Lib leadership against Turnbull (who must be fuming).Lester 11:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the following elements regarding Nelson and "Sorry":

• 1997 support for the Human Rights Commission Bringing Them Home Report
• 2007 Liberal leadership obtained by opposing the concept of an apology
• 2008 January - reitereated his reasons for strongly oppoing the apology
• 2008 February - opposed the use of the term Stolen Generation, eventually supported apology, but caused controversy with his Sorry Day speech

So, the "sorry" issue has been the biggest issue of Nelson's leadership so far.Lester 04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it has. Timeshift (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)