This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Julia Gillard 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
I added some statements concerning expenditure incurred since Gillard left office in 2013. My original addition was deleted on the basis no primary sources were referenced. I added those sources with links to the Department of Finance reports. However, the second version of my edits was then deleted because there was not sufficient context and secondary sources. So I added context by reference to reports by the Australian Parliamentary Library and the independent Committee for the Review of Parliamentary Entitlements report, Review of Parliamentary Entitlements Committee Report, published in 2010.
The comments then read as follows:
As well as statutory travel entitlements,[1] former Prime Ministers who have left Parliament have traditionally been provided with "facilities at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day".[2] These entitlements are a recognition of services provided to Australia and of the demands on time that former Prime Ministers face, involving significant travel, administration, and other expenses.[3] Since leaving politics in 2013, Gillard has used $763,779 in these entitlements.[4]
However, this was then deleted on the basis it is not relevant. I have therefore added a section here where relevance can be discussed.
My own view is that the amount incurred by Gillard as a former PMs is clearly a matter relevant to the article, a matter of public interest, and the general issue has been reported several times. I also suggest it is of relevance in particular given the very short time she has left office and the amount incurred, relative to the amount of time other PMs have been out of office and the amounts they have incurred by comparison (I can include a comparison to other PM spending if that is needed).Jane-526 (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^Cathy Madden and Deirdre McKeown, Parliamentary Library Research Paper, 'Parliamentary remuneration and entitlements', 29 July 2013, Parliament of Australia website.
^Committee for the Review of Parliamentary Entitlements, Review of Parliamentary Entitlements Committee Report, April 2010, p.95, retrieved from the Australian Department of Finance website, 19 January 2017.
Posting administrative records with your views on them violates Wikipedia's policy against original research, WP:OR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of stuff. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for raising a possible separate basis for objection to the addition of the material I have suggested. As to that basis, I have two questions. First, the policy you have linked to states: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Yet there are reliable, published sources of the spending entitlements sourced for each statement. Secondly, I am not sure how you say I have add "my views" on the material. Could you therefore please explain how the suggested additions constitute original research? I may be missing something. Thank you. Jane-526 (talk) 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why the singular focus on Julia Gillard? John Howard has spent more over the same period—not since he left office in 2007, but from 2013 to 2016—so again, why Gillard? The picking out of Gillard for scrutiny on the topic, then justifying it by presenting an opinion that her spending alone is a matter of public interest, simply does not demonstrate impartial intent. If the general issue of post-PM entitlements is so widely-reported, and there is a notable and verifiable public and media view on that issue, then perhaps a referenced comparison, presented without commentary, on a neutral page such as Prime Minister of Australia or maybe even a new one on MP's entitlements in general, might be more appropriate. While I appreciate that you have attempted to keep the wording neutral and fairly well-referenced in response to the reversions, I think myself and others can see that this is a slippery slope. Say for example you include a comparison table of all living former PMs' spending from 2013 to 2016—by selecting that time period, it already needs more context: perhaps PMs spend more in the first few years out of office, so it will look like Gillard is profligate, even though (hypothetically) Bob Hawke spent twice as much from 1991 to 1994. What are they spending it on? Office fitouts, staff, family travel? The detail matters and different people will have different circumstances so you can't just present a figure and a time period as you have done here. Even if you compare it to the others, we end up needing a never-ending stream of further context and detail to remain neutral. Do you see what I mean? --Canley (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your comments; you raise some relevant points. First, I do not suggest singling out Gillard: consistently with the suggestion that it is relevant material, I suggest it is relevant to all former prime ministers. Secondly, I think it could indeed be better to have a separate section comparing all PMs on the Australian Prime Minister page. That would at least address concerns about singling out people. As to the details, there is sufficient data that each item of spending can be identified in the table (the records list what each PM spent their entitlements on, including fit-outs, etc.). I do not think it is beyond the capacity of human ingenuity to present this information in a table which shows the information neutrally. Perhaps then, the best solution is to prepare a draft on the PM talk page which can be discussed there, and refined. Jane-526 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
Should be noted that she was recently awarded an AC. Some reference to this should be written into the article. Cheers, 110.20.207.12 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC) 110.20.207.12 (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So as to clarify, a suggested wording would be 'Recently, on Australia Day in 2017, Julia Gillard was awarded the AC for recognition of her Prime Ministership and her commitment to expanding educational opportunities worldwide.'110.20.207.12 (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
