Jump to content

Talk:David Hurley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wording dispute

[edit]

Currently there appears to be a disagreement about some of wording in the article. To be honest, I don't really have much of an opinion, however, I do feel that in the interests of sorting this out a discussion should take place. As such, I invite editor "138.217.77.6" to discuss why they feel the wording is incorrect. The other parties in the disagreement are also invited to join the discussion. Once a consensus has been reached, if changes are agreed upon they should be made. Likewise, if there is no consensus for these changes, then they should not be made. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you AR. Yes it would be best if this were discussed before any further changes are made. The current wording is as follows:
"On 1 June 2011, it was announced that Hurley will be promoted to general and succeed Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston as the Chief of the Defence Force on 4 July 2011."
138.217.77.6 has changed it repeatedly to this, citing "policy" without actually stating which policy that is:
"On 1 June 2011, Hurley's promotion to general was announced. He is expected to succeed Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston as the Chief of the Defence Force on 4 July 2011."
Firstly my primary concern with the proposed rewording is that it is gramatically incorrect. Specificially "On 1 June 2011, Hurley's promotion to general was announced." This implies that he has already been promoted, which is incorrect. He will be promoted when he takes over as CDF on 4 July 2011. IMO the current wording is more clear in this regard.
Secondly I fail to understand 138.217.77.6 concern about "predicting the future". The current wording merely says that his future promotion to general and appointment as CDF was announced on 1 June. This is an established fact (i.e that it was announced), which is supported with a reliable reference. Of course if, for whatever reason, this promotion and appointment does not occur then the article can be amended at that point. In no way does the current wording say that his promotion to general and appointment as CDF has already occurred (which would of course be predicting the future).
Unfortunately I will be away for the next two weeks with work so will not be able to take any further part in this discussion. Anotherclown (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown has summarised my opinions better than I could have. (Thanks Ac.)
By-the-way, (and independently from considerations of grammar), the statement: "On 1 June 2011, Hurley's promotion to general was announced" is not accurate. (As Ac has said), his promotion was not announced. What was announced was that he will be promoted. (Similar problems of inaccuracy exist with the IP's second sentence.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown and Pdfpdf, your arguments seem well reasoned to me. I would like to hear from 138.217.77.6, though, too, so please feel free to add the reasons for your edits here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh Ribbon

[edit]

Since 1 March 2012, official photos of Hurley show him wearing seven ribbons. There has been no Australian press release regarding this new ribbon. The following "conversation", copied from a user's talk page, explains the situation.

Hey. I was surfing the net and found this article [1], now in it is a picture of Davud Hurley with a mysterious 7th ribbon. Usually when the CDF gets a medal its noted in the defence media releases and it wasnt. The ribbon appears to be red which suggests Legion of Honour (France) and I cant find any article on him receiving a foreign medal, have you heard anything? Nford24 (Talk) 12:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may find a photograph on the ADF photo search, search for "David Hurley" and you should be able to view the high res version. Bidgee (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's strange that it hasn't been audibly / visibly broadcast. No, I haven't seen anything in the media releases, or heard anything, either.[2] Yes it could be Officer of the Legion of Honour. I'll do some ratting around. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not wearing it in pictures taken 29 Feb 2012. Is wearing it in pictures taken 1 March 2012. But, of course, that doesn't tell us when he was awarded it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed the Navy's public affairs office for the exact award and the date of the award. should be interesting. Nford24 (Talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got a reply from the office...unless it's top secret or something they don't seem to want to talk about it LOL. Nford24 (Talk) 22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange! I'll see if I can track down his XO (or PA). Pdfpdf (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moments ago the Navy's public office confirmed that the CDF has been awarded the 'Officer of the Legion of Honour' by the French Government. [3] Nford24 (Talk) 23:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The CDF's office has also just confirmed it as well. Nford24 (Talk) 00:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, CDF doesn't have an XO - he has a Chief of Staff. I talked to GPCAPT Meredith this afternoon, (charming man), and he confirmed that:
  • yes, it is Officer of the (French) Legion of Honour;
  • it was presented to Hurley when he was in Paris in late January by the French CDF;
  • no, there haven't been any Australian press releases;
  • no, there haven't been any photos - there was no Australian photographer present, and the French haven't released any photos to the Australian Department of Defence;
  • no, it is unlikely that there will be an Australian press release - the presentation was some time ago now, and there seem to be quite a number of higher profile matters around at the moment.
That led me to http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/le-chef-d-etat-major/l-actualite-du-cema/cema-visite-du-general-hurley-cema-australien/%28language%29/fre-FR#SearchText=General%20Hurley#xtcr=1 (in French), for which you seem to have found an English version at http://www.ambafrance-au.org/spip.php?article4584&fb_source=message.
Subsequently I saw that you have already updated the David Hurley page.
It seems that you have managed to sort it all out without my help. Good work. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead picture

[edit]

The current picture doesn't seem like a great choice. It isn't clear which person actually IS David Hurley, and Hurley is facing away from the camera, while the other person is facing towards it. A bit confusing. Could we get a front on picture of just him? ★★RetroLord★★ 09:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Hurley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NSW Head of State

[edit]

David Hurley's official website stated that he was Head of State of NSW. Every State of Australia has a Head of State and accordingly the Head of State of the Commonwealth of Australia is the Governor-General.

The Queen meets with Commonwealth Heads of State and former Governor-General Dame Quentin Bryce, mother-in-law of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten was introduced to the Queen as Head of State of Australia.

Australia has numerous Australian Head of States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.111.227 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the website says he is "the formal head of state in New South Wales" (note lower case for "head of state"). Not the Head of State of NSW. These apparently minor wording differences actually denote a world of difference in meaning. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Previous post: please sign your posts; and see Australian head of state dispute ('nuff said there, I think). Wikiain (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

An Rfc was held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government to not have the terms like Designate or Elect placed 'under' the office, during the interim between election/nomination & assumption of office. Perhaps, @Corkythehornetfan: & @Muboshgu: would like to chime in. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consensus, let’s follow that for now. Corky 00:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General

[edit]

Should the civilian Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Force be referred to with the lower title of General, as in the article? Grassynoel (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grassynoel General Hurley is a retired general in the Australian Army, as referenced in the article. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 07:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian monarch is 'head of state'.

[edit]

The Australian monarch is the head of state, not the governor-general, no matter what its 'website' might say. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opininion is noted. Let's get some Australian opinions. I've opened up a discussion here. --Pete (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've mentioned the 2016 WP:POLITICS RFC, there. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter debate here and has been since 1999, as constitutionally you can argue it both ways. The Australian's for Constitutional Monarchy believe the Queen is the head of state whereas the Australian Monarchist League believe it to be the GG.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is a constitution monarchy & a commonwealth realm. It's not different from the others that have a governor general. They all have the monarch as 'head of state'. The editor pushing to either change or create confusion about that, has been attempting to do so since 2005. GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than block two long standing editors for edit warring, I've protected this page for 24 hours to allow a time out for dispute resolution. I strongly hope that the edit warring doesn't resume when the protection expires. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D. It basically sets the conditions for what I've requested. Just wish he & I would've stuck to this discussion until things were ironed out. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion (noted on my talk page), there should be no need to refer to what the GG's website says on this issue given that it is the subject of a large and high quality literature (including works by academic and legal experts). Nick-D (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Queen is Australia's titular head of state, but her sole remaining power is to appoint the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The effective head of state is the GG, who is the only person with the power to give assent to Federal legislation. Consequently I support Pete's addition. The important words are "in practice". Perhaps a minor change to those words may help. The Governor-General is the representative of the Queen and in practice, Australia's head of state, although the Queen remains titular head of state.

The GG's official page says they are in practice the head of state. But does it need to be spelt out on this page as well as the GG page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should note this claim on the Governor-General page then? I think it's a bold claim and notable here for that reason. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the Queen is the head of state, but the Governor General performs the functions is not a particularly bold claim. - Ryk72 talk 01:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He's not saying she's the head of state and he just does her job. He's saying in practice he is the head of state. As an aside, he's the only person saying that they are the Australian head of state. The Queen doesn't claim the position. --Pete (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen doesn't claim the position. I'd be fairly confident that she does indeed describe herself as Queen of Australia. - Ryk72 talk 01:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed she does. But she doesn't claim to be head of state. There is some debate over the matter. The practical effect is that some years ago she gave up requiring a Letter of Credence to be addressed to her as the Australian head of state. They now are directly addressed to David Hurley in his own right. That's a head of state thing, and doubtless the reason he makes the claim because in every respect he is treated as the head of state here and overseas, representing Australia in a way that no Englishwoman can. --Pete (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. - Ryk72 talk 01:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starting it up, all over again. What's next? the Australian government article? As I mentioned some where else, the websight can say the governor-general is president of Australia, if it wants. Saying it, doesn't make it so. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. You are correct in repeatedly pointing that out. It is, however a bold claim to make for a notable person, don't you think? Should we censor bold and notable information on a BLP, do you think? --Pete (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hurley does not claim to be president of Australia, nor its unqualified head of state. - Ryk72 talk 01:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Link here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019G00563

COMMISSION Passed under the Royal Sign Manual and the Great Seal of Australia appointing GENERAL THE HONOURABLE DAVID JOHN HURLEY AC DSC (Retd) to be the Governor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia _______________________________________________________________ ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth: To David John Hurley, Companion of the Order of Australia, Distinguished Service Cross, Greeting: WE DO, by this Our Commission under Our Sign Manual and the Great Seal of Australia, appoint you, David John Hurley, to be, during Our pleasure, Our Governor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia. AND WE DO authorise, empower and command you to exercise and perform all and singular the powers and directions contained in the Letters Patent dated 21 August 2008, relating to the office of Governor‑General or in future Letters Patent relating to that office, according to such instructions as Our Governor‑General for the time being may have received or may in future receive from Us, and according to such laws as are from time to time in force. AND WE DO declare that the powers conferred by this Our Commission include any further powers that may in future be assigned to the Governor‑General in accordance with section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace on 30 May 2019 By Her Majesty's Command, Scott Morrison Prime Minister

189.4.74.195 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to add it in for you but for future reference on how to add external links please see WP:EXTERNAL LINKS. - GA Melbourne (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2023

[edit]

Under Other Appointments, please change “Honorary Patron of the ACT Veterans Rugby Club” to “Patron in Chief of the ACT Veterans Rugby Club” please. Thank you. Acumenscribe (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

postnominals formatting

[edit]

There seems to be alot of movement of governor-general and prime minister of australia articles very recently regarding post nominals and formatting. This is going against the accepted norm and WP:POSTNOM. User:Abraham, B.S. pinging you also since this is your common field. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that long-standing consistency across many of these articles has been altered by User:Carey3146. At least four editors – including User:Dormskirk, you and I – have variously reverted some of these edits on the grounds of WP:POSTNOM, WP:BRD and due to the agreed and long-standing consistency. Our reverts, and the reasoning behind them, have been ignored. The persistent reformatting by Carey3146 is in contravention of WP policy and constitutes edit warring. I suggest that the postnominals in these articles be returned to the agreed, long-standing and consistent format. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say, WP:POSTNOM also allows the style I am using to be accepted. However, I do recognise your concerns over the consistency of the articles relating to the Governors-General. Nevertheless, before I started editing, the GGs did not have a consistent post nominal formatting style that you claim previously existed, rather there was a wide range of different formatting styles. As such, I saw this, and thought that this could be made consistent for all 27 GGs. This is what I have done. If I have overstepped the mark by not consulting, then I apologise, but I do believe that what I did to those articles was not irrational but made them more consistent and uniform. Thanks. Carey3146 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POSTNOM states, and I quote, "consistency should be maintained within an article unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style". Only two of the 27 articles on Australia's governors-general employed a different format. The articles were overwhelmingly consistent in style and, by ignoring both this and the concerns raised by multiple other editors, your edits went against the principles of WP:POSTNOM. The articles have now been restored to the previous dominant and consistent format. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Hurley&oldid=1207673279"