Talk:Tony Abbott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Australia / Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Tony Abbott 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject University of Oxford (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox image[edit]

This RfC is now being closed because consensus has been reached. In RFC discussions, consensus is based upon the strength of policy-based arguments. However, it is worth noting the !vote-count here: six Wikipedians !vote to "keep" the 2010 image. Two are for March 2014. One sarcastic !vote for November 2014. One !vote for "October 2013 or March 2014”. Additionally, Pastafarian and Pete like September 2012; IP110 likes the current image; Lankiveil wants us to telephone the PM for a new pic; and, Timeshift likes the current image but recommends lightening the background. All in all, this is a consensus to keep the current image. However, this does not preclude tweaking the current image by lightening the background. If anyone would like to try lightening the current image’s background, I recommend that you visit the highly talented, very speedy, and awesomely friendly folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop. G’day and no worries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

.... Following is the entire RfC discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently, File:Tony Abbott - 2010.jpg is used as an infobox image; it was taken in 2010 (five years ago). Shall we keep or replace the infobox image? --George Ho (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - we've gone through this before. We just don't have a free image that is anywhere near as good. Having said that, it's five years old and he's looking good for another few terms, we'll need to revisit this at some stage. As an aside, Nick-D's image isn't bad, but the subject is too small and the background could use some more bokeh. --Pete (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – The image is still identifiable as Abbott. Whether it is 5 years or 10 years old, I'm not convinced that the reader is going to have any troubles identifying Abbott in said image. It's fine as it is.MelbourneStartalk 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yeah, none of the others are as good, and it's not as though he's changed hugely in five years. Obviously if a new, free image became available that didn't have any of the odd expressions/lighting that the current alternatives have, then we'd revisit. (Although - "looking good for another few terms"? Lol.) Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The current one has a solid black outline making the face stand out - None of the others are framed with just his face on a plain background. The crop of the photo from March 2014 leaves part of a lamp in the frame. The infobox on Julia Gillard and Paul Keating have black backgrounds - Kevin Rudd infobox has framed plain background and John Howard has an out of focus flag. The one in use seems consistent with the other ones in infoboxes of political leaders. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, per Rudd's DFAT photo, cropping this one to just the members of cabinet wouldn't be bad for the article. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
On Flickr, this is a good photo but it's ND and can't be cropped or used on commons. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • March 2014 image For infobox, we should use the most current image that is available and allows easy identification. January 2015 isn't good unless it could be cropped in to the face, while November 2014 looks like a low-quality candid that de-contextualizes Abbot by placing him in front of the PRC flag. March 2014 is the most current image that meets some minimum standard of quality. LavaBaron (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@LavaBaron: I added the cropped version for your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
After observing the cropped version of the most recent image, I maintain my !vote for March 2014 as Abbott's face appears to be contorted in an unnatural expression that may not be representative of his face normally. LavaBaron (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@LavaBaron and Wikimandia: October 2014 image is added. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yikes not a flattering picture at all. Doesn't Australia put out an official portrait? I'm somewhat surprised. МандичкаYO 😜 03:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
An official portrait of him is under Crown Copyright, so we can't post it here. --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Just in case, here is the official portrait. --George Ho (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace with March 2014 - it's not so much that he's aged, but this one has better lighting and he's looking directly at the camera. (summoned by bot) МандичкаYO 😜 00:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
There are few photographers who would agree that harsh close-range on-camera flash is "better lighting", especially for a portrait. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure looks blitzed in October 2014. They're all terrible so I vote we use the worst one to protest the Crown copyright: November 2014.jpg Looks like a passport photo reject. He looks positively radioactive in September 2012. He looks like a real politician in Current infobox image so must be phony. Can we have no photo? Alec Station (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace October 2013 or March 2014. The current image is very dark, making the edges blur. The October 2013 is very light on a dark background and is thus clear March is dark edged on a light background and is clear. SPACKlick (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Pastafarian Church changed the current 2010 image to the 2012 image. Fortunately, I reverted it, but this may indicate he prefers either 2010 or 2012 image. I am waiting his response. --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
ASSUME GOOD FAITH! Nah mate, ya don't say? Yes, I prefer the 2012 image. For my reasons you could read the bit I wrote in my reason for changing it. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The September one? I forgot there is more than one 2012 image. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I think something about it is a little creepy but still it's the nicest image of him and I believe best fits the image he tries to make of himself (far more friendly, outdoorsy, normal decent (top) bloke) which surely cannot be against the Wikipedia guidelines. Also in that other image he strikes me as looking a tad dim which isn't the best for a biography. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The image that currently exists is the best image of Tony Abbott, and the only people trying to remove it are removing it because they don't like the fact there's a good image of Abbott on his Wikipedia page. The Pastafarian Church, please do not lie about your intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think is the nicest image of Abbott (best however, not. I think only one of the Cheshire Cat smiles can be considered the best representation of the Tonemeister), and would suggest it be used, but Georgy Boy said it would be a violation of copyright. I suggested the one I did because I think it looks the second least creepy, after the present one, but I don't believe the present one is good because his pained expression makes him look a bit thick. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Georgy Boy, are you super sure the above pic can't be used? It's really quite a nice photo and still in-keeping with the official-look. Not enough aussie flags though… :D The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, is your old name Gh87 from g-7th & h-8th? The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said, a photo from the official website is under Crown Copyright, so we can't upload it because we already have free images of his grin slimy smiles (*sarcasm*). --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Ick, none of them are particularly flattering images, and the current "dark" one looks like something you'd see in an attack ad on TV, accompanied by an annoying "buzzer" sound. His cheesy grin in all of the others except the Jan '15 one is slightly disturbing and likely to frighten small children, and the Jan '15 one is a bit too small and blurry to use at anything other than very small resolutions. Has someone tried contacting the PM's office to see if a better quality picture can be obtained. I'm sure he'd be delighted to pose in front of a flag for us. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC).
@Lankiveil: I uploaded a newer version of the Jan '15 headshot. Still blurry. Would it change your mind? --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The only reason someone could interpret the current image as an "attack ad" is because of the black background and a lack of smile. Try colouring in the background with white. We shouldn't replace a photo when we already have one of such unbeatable high quality. As has been said on other pages and by other editors, I really struggle to imagine someone finding a free image better than the one currently being used. By all means, find/upload photos of him if you think they're better, but I highly doubt it. None of the images on this talk page so far come anywhere close. Timeshift (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh… Lankiveil didn't interpret it — or suggest anyone might — as an attack ad. Lankiveil only said they'd expect it from an attack ad. BIG difference. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Current one's better IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 00:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


As an aside, it's good to see a gallery of photos available for comparison. Thanks, George Ho , well done. I'm struck by the smile TA shows in most of them. A grimace rather than a grin. So cheesy and fake. The only one of them worth a hoot is September 2012 - the real Tony (™ JG). --Pete (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abbott's Views[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Rather than remove the whole thread, I'll take it as withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be within the rules of Wikipedia to add a few of Abbott's nuttier espousals? They are well known and oft quoted in Australia. I think a few phrases like 'locked up forest' that needs to be cut down & 'Jesus knew there was a place for everyone, and it's not necessarily everyone place to come to Australia' as a reason against illegal immigration would be enlightening and not unfair provided they were amongst some less nutty opinions and not just making fun of him. This would be factual and not intended to slander him, but give a fair representation of his 'eccentricity' and ideas. I — for this reason — ought not be it's author, but I think it's worth including. This should not include simple slip-ups like 'Canadia' and the 'Suppository of all wisdom'. [1]


Videos of his gaffes can easily be found on YouTube, 'Shaun Micallef's Mad as Hell' (on iview (ABC) or YouTube), and possibly from a more reliable source found via these YouTube videos. They're really not very hard to find. Also search for Tony Abbott John Oliver for amusement and a sense of his way with English.

'The Roast' is a short Australian television programme that is also worth a look at for popular criticism of Tony Abbott's ideas. It has not aired for a while now but the episodes are still relevant. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC) The Pastafarian Church (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Alternate, passive, but funnily more opinionated approach:[edit]

Should Tony Abbott's (Aus. P.M.) page include extensive documentation of criticism of and support for him professed by relevant people?The Pastafarian Church (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC) The Pastafarian Church (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(READ ABOVE) Another — possibly more appropriate — approach could be to describe (with hyperlinks to evidence) some criticism of and support for the Tonemeister by the Australian people and media, and other countries' media and political leaders. Also criticism, insult, and support proffered by previous Prime Ministers (Malcolm Fraser – Lib. & Paul Keating – ALP (crit.)), Liberal Party members, and present day members such as Malcolm Turnbull.

Tony Abbott is prone to the occasional Freudian slip - eg., saying he would "shirtfront" Putin, when he really meant to buttonhole him. I especially like the way he described Kevin Rudd as "the suppository of all wisdom". But are they encyclopaedic? And how would we handle them in a NPOV manner? Sounds like the OP above just wants to attack Abbott. I also wonder about sourcing.
But, as always, our touchstone is Kevin Rudd's earwax-munching. On camera, bazillions of views, a fabulous commentary on both the future two-timer PM and the banality of Question Time, but Wikipedia doesn't mention it. Are we a repository of earwax stories, or are we a serious information resource? --Pete (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Pete (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits that do not improve the quality of pages and enforce the Wikipedia rules. This is a S.P.A.
Of course I am only proposing this to insult the P.M., but that does not make the addition any less appropriate. I jestingly suggest such a negative take on the wnkr, but I seriously instructed it should NOT include such 'Freudian Slip's. The only reason it would seem an attack on Abbott is because nothing that man says could be reported in his favour. I only suggest things that give people an idea of the Australians opinions of him and his opinions of them — a fair and factual point — such as:
What the women of Aus…
I'd feel a bit threatened (on homosexuality)
Jesus knew…
Shit happens (on the death of a soldier in Afghanistan)
………………*some time & much nodding later*…………………I've given you the answer you deserve (on being asked a fair question)
That isn't a simple slip-of-the-tongue if ya ask miy. Slip of the mind, maybe. Slip of the tongue, most certainly not.
The man's a nut-job, you oughtn't try to white-wash his idiocy when it shows. I'm just suggesting someone faithfully report him, not as negatively as I write, but an accurate representation of his views (dated to avoid confusion when a conflict arises). The only reason it seems to insult him is any sane person would come to that conclusion after seeing him a few seconds. What a nut-case. B.T.W. this is not a single purpose account. I have only been in possession of it awhile and have recently seen some bumbling dck on the tele and decided the internet ought to document it. ALthough, it is kind-of nice having my own special title at the end. I like it. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) The Pastafarian Church (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC) &so on…
There is zero chance of your proposed text, which you freely admit is calculated to insult, being included. This discussion is skirting the boundaries of WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
"Of course I am only proposing this to insult the P.M" - quotes should only appear in areas they are relevant (WP:CSECTION) and where they are relevant and don't give undue weight to recent events - the 10 year test means that details should only be included if they are of interest at that depth in 10 years. See above on WP:NOTFORUM -- Aronzak (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Many of the things I suggest are from around ten years ago : ). And you are mistaken, I was jesting. I think they're an important contribution, and I'm unsure how including his ideas on climate change is calculated to insult. I suggest you first learn more about the topic I discuss before rudely interjecting. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


I reckon its worth a mention as to how Tony Abbott obtained Australian citizenship, seeing as he was born a foreigner.Suastiastu (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem confused. He has always been an Australian citizen, since his mother is an Australian. The issue is that he was also born a UK citizen, and there's some doubt in the minds of some people as to whether he has ever renounced that status, as required by Australian law for parliamentarians. See Talk:Tony Abbott/Archive 3#Still an UK Citizen? for a previous discussion of this. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
He says he has, and there is no reliable source to the contrary. There's a swag of unreliable sources–bloggers and fringe sites–trying to raise doubts, but it's all smoke, no fire. If the doubts were actually true, it would be a huge story and we would have no shortage of MSM sources. If anyone here thinks that they have convincing proof, take it to the High Court, and we'll report on the outcome. It doesn't work the other way round. Yet. --Pete (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Nor is there any reliable source for his renouncing it… Of course if it is true he would not say so. And Tones isn't exactly the most trusty pmThe Pastafarian Church (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said, take it to the High Court, buddy. Fringe views need not be entertained here. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Photo[edit]

Tony Abbott October 2013 (cropped).jpg This photo hasn't been considered in the above discussion and I just thought I might add it to the discussion. It is much newer and he's smiling in it and it's just a better photo. Thoughts? Andreas11213 (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That photo is actually considered in the above discussion. Frickeg (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
how about this one :P --Stemoc 10:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"Better photo" is very subjective. This one is a portrait taken with on-camera flash, and that's rarely a good thing. It flattens out facial features and washes out details. This shot is a modified crop from a two-shot here which actually works quite well in itself, but when cropped and shopped, not so much. It's not a particularly good smile, IMHO. Far too lopsided and toothy, and do we really want our politicians smiling? Check out the images for Barack Obama and Julia Gillard and ask yourself which is the better portrait. Our current image for Tony Abbott is such a superb portrait that we'd really have to have something outstanding to top it, and good portraits of Australian politicians with usable licences are very hard to come by. On that note, if anybody can come up with a better image for Kevin Rudd? What we have is quite insipid; all the flavour drained out of the man. That's one where we could use a good sparkling smile, because he spent so much of his time in the public eye smiling. Tony, not so much. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I always felt that Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Howard's images were not allowed to be changed thus why i never actually added one to their article, i remember trying a recent one involving John Howard and it was overturned as they preferred the early 2000 pic .. regarding Rudd, I never came across people complaining about the current pic used which is sad cause he looks much older (and chubbier) nowadays and regarding abbott, I pretty much upload all his images i can find...he looks weird in all of them, either its his weird smile, botox looking lips or weird skin tones  :/ ..anyhow, I added another one from September last year...--Stemoc 07:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015[edit]

Change the introduction of the article to reflect other Prime Ministers, such as David Cameron. Place 'is an Australia politician who has serves as 28th Prime Minister...' gives a more consistant format; having the nationality first.

Looking something like this:

"Anthony John "Tony" Abbott MP (born 4 November 1957) is an Australian politictian who has served as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia since 2013, as leader of the Liberal party since 2009 and as the Member of Parliament for Warringah since 1994."

Thank you Jackfarthster85 (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Inomyabcs (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)