Talk:Tony Abbott/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Books written

Could someone expand the books written section with full bibliographic details? Quark1005 (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Campaign 2010

I propose following text:

Prime Minister Gillard set the Australian federal election, 2010 at 21 August. Abbott responded to Ms Gillard’s election annoucement press conference from Brisbane, saying that, if elected, a Coalition government would: ‘‘end the waste, repay the debt, we'll stop the new taxes and we’ll stop the boats’’.[1] The Galaxy Poll put Labor ahead of the Coalition at 52-48% two party preferred at the opening of the campaign.[2]

It is the earliest indication we have of Abbott's campaign priorities. Timeshift, please show some good faith and discuss the proposal respectfully without allegations of 'ignorance' etc. Thanks, (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC).


Sorry, this is a page for Tony Abbott, not his parties election campaign, mentioning he is leader and involved in the campaign would be as far as the page should go I think. 203.35.135.136 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably should list something here about the two Tony's, one scripted and another ad-lib that sometimes goes back on promises such as no new tax.118.208.41.105 (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Polling

We do not need 2000 characters on various state by state polling and what breakfast he had. Please revert your contribution back to the status quo and establish WP:CONSENSUS if you wish to change it as per procedure. It may be cited and correct but this demonstrates you are not yet familiar with wikipedia policy. Contributions need to be more than cited and correct. The 2000 characters of irrelevance and WP:POV must go, what was there previously was neutral, not cherry picked, and gave a clear concise view of where polling had been and where it is at. Timeshift (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made further edits for brevity, as this seems to be a reasonable part of your comment. But it is not accurate nor is it in any way 'a clear concise view of where polling had been and where it is at' for us to keep a text which suggests that only one poll in 2010 indicated that Rudd-Labor was in decline in the polls. An 18% improvement in preferred PM status over 2 months is significant and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 12:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you do not take a historical view of the polls. Abbott is getting Beazley polling, not pre-Prime Ministership polling. Liberal leader and party polling went from abysmal to not good. The coalition primary vote remains firmly where it's been sitting for a long time and let's just skip past the leader dissatisfaction ratings. Your cherry picking with emphasis, slant and tone created a POV which made the polls sound a lot better for Abbott than they are in reality, by using WP:RS to create WP:SYN. We don't need to quote various polls if they aren't telling different stories, which really, they aren't in terms of trend. It just bulks it up without any real point and loses and confuses the reader. Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"Historical view"! The Labor Party just replaced its leader before he'd finished even one term? It's unprecendented. Your personal analysis may well be that the "Liberal leader and party polling went from abysmal to not good", but no less than the Australian Labor Party begged to differ. I don't have to say anything more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Your assertions have what to do with the historical view of polling? Your interpretations of polling are just plain cherry picked and are weaved in to WP:SYN. My version is neutral, giving an overview rather than accentuating what angle would look best for Abbott. Timeshift (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The Labor Party replaced a leader before his term expired because the Opposition improved its electoral polling position against the Rudd Government while Abbott was leader. This is non-contentious, simple, factual commentary about a pretty remarkable historical event. It was the judgement of the ALP and it was reported as fact in every noteworthy publication in the world. You are going to extraordinary lengths to remove a simple statement of fact. Your personsal anti-Abbott views are quite plain, but it would be great if you could set that aside and help draft a sensible, comprehensive text. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 11:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a very simplistic interpretation of events. The various accounts of Rudd's downfall also discuss problems caused by his inter-personal style and concerns over Rudd's overall strategy and communication skills. The polls at the time Rudd was removed actually had the ALP in an election-winning position. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That is your version of events, and is using WP:RS to create WP:SYN. What actually happened was confidence in Rudd in the public was lost - Rudd was losing, Abbott was not winning. One just needs to observe the other-side-independent satisfaction-dissatisfaction ratings. Abbott fails dismally here and has done so for the majority of his time as Lib leader. Rudd went from 50-40 to 40-50 in a single poll and never recovered, this coincided with the mining ad war. The other thing is your POV of making a big song and dance about Rudd being replaced. It's mentioned but no need to intertwine it everywhere as if there's some axe to grind. In westminster systems we elect MPs who choose who will lead the govt. The people do not choose the PM. And if the leader and the party are not getting on then what choice is there... the party always has the final say. But that is all an aside to polling. You are interpreting for the readers a much rosier picture of Abbott in the polls than is the real situation. All i'm doing is stating the polls without a narrative and let the readers come to their own rightful conclusions. And getting back to the historical view bit, Labor spent most of opposition around 50-50 a few either direction. There's a difference between benefitting from the end of a stratosphetically popular government, and being a genuinely wanted alternative. Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It was not me, but the ALP who decided the Coalition had improved its polling against Rudd (evidently there was also internal marginals polling which was worse than the public polling). Some of your edits have been improvements, but some seem deliberately obfuscatory - and you are flinging around unecessary accusations of ignorance and bias, rather than just acting in good faith to make improvements. After first trying to deny any reference to changed polling in the lead up to Rudd's replacement; you then inserted an erronneous edit saying the coalition had only had 'one' positive poll etc until finally you wrote a disengenuous line about ALP polling 55% at the start of the campaign (ignoring Galaxy). The line 'the pm declined in popularity and the coalition improved it's poll position to beat labor in May for the first time in 4 years' was perfectly factual, sourced and innocuous. Your line that both leaders 'developed' net negative ratings is also disengenous, as you know full well that Rudd collapses, while Abbott generally improved. As for your personal analysis that Labor was in no trouble in June 2010, that needs to be emailed to Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard - not directed at me. To pinch a phrase - 'let's move forward'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 13:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The current text using opinion polling is confusing and uninformative, it should be removed completely. The original point of the paragraph was to give some coverage of the opinion that Abbott's performance as opposition leader led to Rudd's ousting. I think the middle ground is to ditch the opinion polling crap (which attempts to "prove" Abbott caused Rudd's slide in popularity) and simply cover the fact that the opinion exists that Abbott contributed to Rudd's downfall. Perhaps Abbott's quotation of Howard's comments [1] about securing Rudd's scalp would be a better way to cover this. I think the opinion that Abbott contributed towards Rudd's ousting is a mainstream view that deserves to be in the article as per WP:POV. Abbott definitely had a role in Rudd's downfall, we should cover that role in clear language. --Surturz (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What level of contribution did Abbott have? Can you provide more detail? I'd find it pretty hard to believe you at this point considering Abbott had a very firm net negative satisfaction-dissatisfaction rating, something that's only gotten worse, not better. Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. We are never going to get any consensus on how much, if at all, Abbott actually contributed to Rudd's downfall. However, Abbott himself, and also presumably Howard, have claimed some credit. We can quite easily cover that assertion in a WP:V, WP:NPOV manner - we just say that (Abbott, Howard, the pundits, whomever) believe Abbott played a role. We don't need to say the opinion is true, just acknowledge the existence of the opinion. Rudd's downfall is notable and related in its own right and should be mentioned in this article anyway.
Arguing over opinion polling on this topic is not going to lead us anywhere useful, it's just WP:OR. I'm suggesting text like

"On (date) Rudd resigned because (Gillard had the numbers blah blah); Abbott later revealed that Howard congratulated him by phone, expressing the opinion that Abbott's performance as Opposition leader had contributed to Rudd's downfall."

(ugh Howard-o-meter +1 :-P ) --Surturz (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And why did they publicise that individual phone call? Propaganda. It's best not to give readers judgements based on opinions, but rather where polling was at when it happened without POV. Polling on it's own without a narrative let's the reader make their own judgement. Timeshift (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Surturz, you are quite right, but unfortunately Timeshift is attempting to enforce a personal partisan analysis that has turned the text into a clumsy and confusing paragrapgh. He wants to delete any clear, comprehensible reference to a decline in Rudd's polling following Abbott's leadership because he is worried it 'constructs a positive text for Abbott' (ie he is being flagrantly partisan and ahistorical). So let's not offer him the option of deleting the paragraph altogether! Timeshift, here are some basic uncontentious starter points for how Abbott contributed to Rudd's downfall: Abbott withdrew support for the CPRS and called it a great big new tax (Rudd retreated causing damage in the polls and Abbott ran an 'all talk, no action' critique of Rudd;); Abbott attacked over the Insulation program; Abbott campaigned vehemently against the Super Profits Tax and called it a great big new tax (Rudd could not retreat because he had retreated on the CPRS and was being critiqued by Abbott as 'all talk, no action') etc etc. Basic stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Observoz that is clear point of view and unacceptable. You are supporting adding a narrative and cherry picking opinion polls. I don't. That is why you fail. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift, and presumably your comments that 'Rudd was losing, Abbott was not winning' is not an example of a point of view? I provided my comments above for the purposes of background discussion. They may be almost universally advocated in the Australian analytical media, but they are nevertheless not my proposals for the article entry, for which I have only ever proposed basic reference to decline in Rudd's polling coinciding with Abbott's leadership. It is not cherry picking to mention some polling placing an Opposition in an election winning position for the first time in four years immediately prior to the replacement of a government leader. It is mentioning that an opposition was in an election winning position in some polling for the first time in four years immediately prior to the replacement of a government leader. Its about as POV narrative as saying: Bob Hawke was elected to office in 1983. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolute rubbish. And my comments/POV are intented for the talk page only, you want to add yours to the article. Your (incorrect) narrative that you attach to the polling is laughable. Timeshift (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift, your arguments are not improved by dishonesty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 03:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)(edit conflict x2) Timeshift9, you can't have it both ways. Either
  1. the opinion that Abbott played a role in Rudd's demise is worth including, and we state that opinion clearly, or
  2. it isn't worth including therefore we don't include it.
What you want to do is put in opinion poll data and Rudd's demise next to each other and "let the reader decide". This is a textbook WP:SYN violation, and confusing to boot - we aren't actually presenting any knowledge to the reader, just raw data. I challenge the very concept that opinion poll data "proves", one way or the other, whether Abbott had a role in Rudd's resignation. Opinion polls are the smoke, not the fire: we should be looking at the actions of the players e.g. Abbott changing coalition policy to vote down the CPRS, which led to Rudd's backflip on the CPRS, and so on.
If we are going to say anything about Rudd's demise and Gillard's ascension, it should be along these lines, not meaningless, context-free opinion poll data.
I'm going to remove the para for the moment, hopefully we can agree to nut out some worthy text here before restoring coverage of Rudd's resignation. --Surturz (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I only wanted to mention polling, the Rudd/Abbott stuff was insisted by others so I was trying to work toward a compromise. Using polling to push a Liberal-POV narrative within the article itself is not and will not be accepted. And FYI, I agree with Surturz recent edit which removes the narrative. It simply says what the three opening 2PPs were and that Abbott's approval continues to drop (both without a narrative, or POV). Timeshift (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Check the record, Surturz, that is not what Timeshift attempted to do, he rather initially tried to delete any reference to polling, then wrote confusing or misleading or incorrect edits about poll positions in an apparent effort to avoid two points being included which give a basic background to the extraordinary Rudd replacement: in 2010 Rudd's personal rating 'declined' (the most uncontentious point of all); and Coalition polling 'improved' because from such basic historical points he imputes a 'pro-Abbott narrative'. The only useful edit he made was to insert that Abbott's satisfaction was net-negative, but he clouded the issue by deleting reference to Rudd's decline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 03:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You have strange recollections Observoz... I deleted cherry picking of polling, I did not delete polling period. I also removed or amended the pro-Abbott POV that was weaved in to it but I prefer just the polls rather than a (especially one of your) narratives. Timeshift (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift, how is saying Rudd's polling declined an example of 'POV narrative' while saying the '2PP narrowed' is not?? How is saying an opposition got some positive polling for the first time in FOUR YEARS 'irrelevant cherry picking narrative', but declaring labor on at '55% at the start of the campaign' (ignoring galaxy) is not? ENOUGH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observoz (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Observoz, you still haven't learnt how to sign your comments, so I don't expect you to be familiar with how things should be on wikipedia. Don't you get it? The 2PP narrowed is neutral. To say Rudd Labor's polling declined or Abbott Liberals' polling improved is a less neutral way to say it as it puts the attention on one rather than both. The former doesn't mention either side of politics, while expresses the same thing - a far superior wording. The next bit you query is the way it was phrased which was the issue, you're stressing a particular point to reach a POV... it shows in your post - you refer to the polling as positive for the opposition... wouldn't it rather be negative for the government? Rudd's satisfaction went from solid net positive to solid net negative in one poll, when the mining tax ad war began. Abbott's satisfaction was already net negative. If it was the opposition that was improving rather than the government declining, wouldn't Abbott be getting closer to the personal polls Rudd got in 2007 rather than the Beazley sort of polling Abbott is getting? And though the 2PP has moved, why hasn't the coalition primary vote risen in 4 years? This is of course not related to the article but rather showing you how you are knowingly or otherwise implementing a POV, it's very deceitful to say the opposition is improving rather than the government is/was faltering, which is why if references to one or both sides can be removed, such as using "the 2PP levelled out", it assists with NPOV. On your third point, to declare what the current 2PP polling is (with the right neutral wording) at the start of an election campaign is not POV. I suggest you think long and hard about your responses and what you think is appropriate on wikipedia before you continue. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Aside from this, it's all being overplayed anyway - Tony Abbott's ratings were comparable with Kim Beazley (2005-2006)'s as opposition leader for pretty much the entire time he's been in, whilst Kevin Rudd's fell to a level which on past experience (Hawke, Keating, Howard) was not terminally low, but compared to the record-breaking heights of the previous two years, were comparatively low. At a similar time in the 1996-1998 election cycle, ALP (the then opposition) was on 43% with 50% 2PP, Howard (PM) had a net dissatisfaction of -1 (45-46), Beazley (OL) had higher ratings than Howard (48-37), and Howard was better PM 42% to Beazley's 37%. Let's not engage in recentism, the present can sometimes look more historic than it really is because of 24 hour media coverage (to give a parallel example, when was the last time one didn't hear a State election being described the day before it as "historic"?) Orderinchaos 18:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Guys, give it a rest. You are both just using WP:OR interpretations of opinion poll data to make your arguments. How about googling a bit and finding some WP:RS on the issue? --Surturz (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Surturz. If interpreting the polls is that complex, and different "reliable" polls give such different results, even on the same day, there is little point in such detailed reporting on them here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm the one trying to remove Observoz' narrative from the polling... my WP:OR is allowed on talk pages ;) Timeshift (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a general problem for auspol articles, I'd love everyone's feedback at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Use_of_opinion_poll_data
--Surturz (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
(My keyboard didn't have the signoff chracters, Timeshift. Get over it.). Everybody else, Timeshift is not trying to remove 'my' narrative, he is trying to remove any reference to Rudd's decline. It's boring and its weird, but that's what it boils down to. He does not object to describing 'improvement' (or its opposite 'decline) in polls in the text, as he keeps writing in that Abbott's polls dropped etc - he only objects to informing readers that Rudd's polling declined in 2010. In other words he is trying to construct a partial account. This is not 'neutrality' this is bizarre partisanship and possibly the stupidest intervention this article has ever witnessed!Observoz (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of breaking WP:AGF, I think it's about time you got over your absolutely claptrap nonsense Observoz. Try spending some time learning how wikipedia works rather than acting like a bull in a china shop. Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Observoz, please don't take us for fools. This was a blatant example of WP:SYN - and it wasn't Timeshift who reverted you on that occasion. Orderinchaos 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, do not accuse me of badfaith. Please try to understand why I think it is important to include reference to a decline in Rudd's personal polling in order to give an accurate account of the Australian political scene during 2010. Given the huge body of analysis that includes reference to Rudd's poll decline as a standout feature of 2010, it is improper for any editor to accuse me of bad faith; 'ignorance', 'claptrap nonsense' or any of the other uncivil remarks which Timeshift is making. The BBC included in a lead article on the subject of Rudd's replacement: "| The (Labor) party has suffered a sharp drop in support in opinion polls this year. A turn-around on a carbon trading scheme and a wrangle over a controversial mining tax led to a sharp slide in approval ratings for Mr Rudd's government"; the Chinese government's Xinhua news agency said "Dissatisfaction with Rudd has hit a record 55 percent, according to a telephone survey of 1,147 people between June 18 and 20 published in the Australian newspapers this week."; the Wall Street Journal said Mr. Rudd's plight would have been unthinkable a year ago, when his approval rating was well above 60%. A poll earlier this week found Labor eking out a 52% to 48% edge against the Liberal-National bloc, calculated on the basis of Australia's preferential voting system. On a straight matchup, Mr. Rudd's party was trailing 40% to 35%.; and our very own ABC said: "Mr Rudd's fall from the top has been swift, as his popularity among voters fell from stratospheric highs to disastrous lows in just a few months".Observoz (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this noteworthy?

Ref. Timeshift (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be if it was better written. Horridly written piece, full of opinion from people I've never heard of. You might be able to use something from Last weekend's poll shows that Labor's 42 per cent primary vote is driven by 44 per cent support from women compared with 39 per cent from men, and the Coalition's 38 per cent primary vote comprising 42 per cent support from men and only 33 per cent from women. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Horridly written piece, full of opinion from people I've never heard of." <-- rather adequately (and unfortunately) describes a hell of a lot of the modern media landscape :/ Orderinchaos 10:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The article appears to be based on the results of a single poll, so probably isn't safe to use until a trend can be proven (though I note that other polls have found the same sort of gender split in Abbott and Gillard's approval ratings). Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm glad that Timeshift9 has attempted to find good secondary refs about polling instead of straight refs to the primary poll data. Thanks. If we are going to discuss Abbott's opinion poll numbers at all, I'd like to see a balanced view ie. he polls best with... and polls worst with...
However, I personally don't think opinion polling is particularly encyclopedic content, and would prefer not to cover it at all. Genuine election results are the only polling numbers of lasting historical import. Look at the article on Bob Hawke - very little coverage of opinion polling. Hawke polled very well with women IIRC and that is not mentioned there. I would rather cover actual policies than opinion polling. It's not interesting to say that Abbott polls poorly with women. His attitudes and actions on abortion, pre-marital sex etc. are more interesting and already well covered in the article IMHO. --Surturz (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather conver it all. With the ever increasing gender vote gap between the two (see today's pollbludger), we could well see some distortion in the seat result, with seats with higher numbers of women going to Labor. But i'll leave it out as that seems to be the general consensus at the moment. Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I find observing the demographics of the supporters of interest. If it can be well sourced, I think it can be quite encyclopaedic. This morning's ABC AM program had a discussion of the male/female difference between Abbott's and Gillard's supporters. But I don't like audio sources. Do transcripts come out of AM? HiLo48 (talk)

What would be noteworthy would be the background of the man who wants to rule us, as it were. It makes a difference what the parents did for a crust - does that require a sorry? Howard's full throttle against the unions was shaped by his parents' small business; Hawke's more overarching ideas by his father being a clergyman. Whether you grow up in the theatre, in a plumbing business or are a professor's son/daughter does have a bearing on the person and the focus/foci (?) of that person. Why has this been made a secret on this webpage? 121.209.48.254 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Any chance we could get a better picture there? that one is small and horribly shadowed--Crasnex (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a better FREE image, be our guest. Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mad Monk

"he began studying for the Catholic priesthood, and entered St Patrick's Seminary" "Due to this time in the seminary, Abbott was given the nickname "The Mad Monk"[11]" This is not correct as its not to the fact the studied religion, but rather his extremist religious views which he would enforce in government EG Ban Stem Cell research which he is against due to his religious beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.107.3 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source to tell us when the term was first used, and why? HiLo48 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the article doesnt even say "mad monk" and offcourse no reason as to why he was given this name thats not even mentioned in the article, let alone by who it was given. So according to wiki rules, That sentence should be removed fromt he article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.68.40 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"his extremist religious views which he would enforce in government" What nonsense. He can't enforce his views or Liberal party opponents would cross the floor. (People in the Liberal Party can do that without missing out on party backing at the next election unlike the Labor party). Secondly if he attempted to "enforce" his views a leadership summit could result in his removal. (Thats the Liberal gentleman way to removal a leader, unlike Labors backstabbing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.56.87.56 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
One sided political views don't help, no matter which party they support. Howard did not allow much dissent at all in the party room. He DID enforce very strict control of the party room. While Abbott is not in that position at this stage, he may be in future. It's a person thing, not a party thing. As for Mad Monk, it is real. It would be good to know where the term originated. HiLo48 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
...and someone has just told us in he article. I like that explanation. Makes a lot of sense. HiLo48 (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsupported by the reference. If we are going to include nicknames given by political opponents, then the PM is fair game as well, remember. --Pete (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that removal due to it not being in the source, but where DID the name come from? DO you know? It's pretty common, I've even heard Libs say it. Maybe they're Turnbull supporters ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I know exactly where and why the nickname "Juliar" came about. We can find photographs. Do we want this sort of material included in political biographies? Be fair, please. --Pete (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The name was mentioned in the source, and it gave a possible explanation, but I agree fully with removing the term. Especially given that it was sourced to an opinion piece, but derogatory nicknames shouldn't really occur in any biography. - Bilby (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree completely. I was just curious. "Juliar" is pathetic and irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, but she is the Prime Minister and entitled to a bit of respect. --Pete (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
That's either a poor joke, or a complete misunderstanding of what I posted. And verbal humour doesn't work well on the web, so I have no idea which. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Gay marriage

http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/news/inthemag/1004317/abbotts-women “There is nothing wrong in the slightest, nothing at all wrong with same-sex couples wanting, I guess, to celebrate their commitment to each other. That is a good thing, not a bad thing" Isnt he against gay marriage? Being a very religious Catholic says he should be, so was this just an answer to avoid the question or he has nothing against gay marriage? Whats his stance?

This is relevant to the article - in order to make sure we've covered Abbott's views on the topic correctly. I think context is key though - do we know what else he went on to say? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
That source is somewhat ambiguous - I'd assume Abbott is advocating civil union, not "gay marriage". This pre-election interview on Q&A is much more explicit on this point: Abbott on Q&A, 16 August 2010--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing View on Abortion

The article states that he is a social conservative, but it previously quoted him as saying that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare". This quote is contradictory with other of his stances on the issue, where he makes a parallel between abortion and infanticide. My question is that if he supports legal abortion for every case or just for extreme cases.213.13.241.195 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he was misquoted while quoting Clinton on a interview. While Clinton supports abortion without restrictions, Abbot seems to support abortion just for extreme cases. The article itself and several links that I searched seems to indicate that he doesn't support abortion legality without any restrictions, which in fact only happens in a state of Australia. We can see that by this article in [Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia]213.13.241.195 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Safe, legal and rare is just an Abbott euphamism picked up by a wikipedian and inserted in to the article. I never liked it there myself either. As if anyone could ever say that Abbott isn't anti-abortion while holding a straight face. Timeshift (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would be a direct contradiction of his very public position as a Catholic for him to be saying that abortion should be legal. I know he's a politician, and trying to please all people all of the time, but that just makes no sense. It's been removed now, and I'm very happy with that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
"Picked up by a wikipedian"? There's a lot of material on this site that's been added by Wikipedians, strangely enough. Fairly weak argument for POV. The article is already quite clear that Abbott is "anti abortion" - but he's not proposing making it illegal and he couldn't do it even if he wanted to. Whether this view is held genuinely or merely through political expediency, it is verifiable and a good precis of his actual views, ie, that it should be legal but rare ("extreme cases", as you put it). If a reader wants to know more (under what circumstances he believes it should be legal, etc), the rest of the paragraph goes into considerable detail and there is no confusion at all. It's pretty presumptuous to say that any view he holds differing from Vatican orthodoxy creates confusion.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Numerous sources for the "safe, legal, rare" quote, almost always in the context of his views being against recriminalisation.
And a couple more about his abortion policy, sans "rare" quote:
Merely political puff? Maybe. A "misrepresentation" of Abbott's current political views on the matter? Hardly.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Definately a misrepresentation of Abbott's abortion views. Readers could walk away with the wrong impression on Abbott's abortion views from this, and I for one find that a misjustice. Timeshift (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:DTTR, Wikipedia is not about getting justice. Look, you may be right - he may privately believe that Abortion should be illegal under almost any circumstances. He's certainly called for a drastic reduction in the numbers of abortions performed, but this is hardly equivalent for a call for recriminalisation. It would however be more accurate to put more emphasis on "rare" as Abbott did in the interview which that quote comes from; perhaps something as simple as "Abbott has said that he believes Abortion should be safe, legal but also very rare" - this would allude to some discussion of when exactly he believes it appropriate and his current political policy. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia is about getting justice, if one equates justice to the truth/the facts (along wikipedia guidelines). Wikipedia is about the facts. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I was making a point that you are wrong - Wikipedia is about (verifiable) truth, and (verifiable) truth is justice. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well then please provide some reliable sources that demonstrate that the above seven reliable sources contain inaccurate information.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Come now, we both know inclusion goes far beyond what's verifiable. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your additional citations, Yeti Hunter. Other Editors just because a politician says that they are catholic does not mean they accept, obey or advocate everything that the Vatican city says on a political issue. We cannot work off a series of prejudiced assumptions about what makes a "catholic" or listing an inadequate series of relative abstractions like "he is a conservative". Wikipedia is no place for strawmen and it is not a place for prejudiced assumptions. Until we restore the text that explains Abbott's actual stated position, we are misrepresenting the facts.Observoz (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And you just completely misrepresented my position. Timeshift (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough Timeshift - as it wasn't you who mentioned catholics, I have ammended my comment above and address to 'editors' in general. Observoz (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Timeshift - You're right about verifiability being but one hurdle that information must pass in order to be included. Two of the others are relevance and factual accuracy. If it can indeed be demonstrated that "safe, legal and rare" is not in fact Abbot's true view on abortion, then by all means add information to that effect. Even then, it would still be a fact that he had said it, and it would still be relevant to highlight the difference between his public and private views, or his changing views, or whatever reason exists for the difference.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If he really weren´t pro-life then his views against steam-cell research certainly wouldn´t make any sense. I think he means that he wants to keep Australian legislation as it is, and by no means supports an legalization of abortion without any restrictions.81.193.188.7 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My opinon on this factor, from what i have read about Abbott and his views on abortion, Im pretty sure he is personally pro life, but either he has changed his views or contray to what he said in 2004 about abortion being a national tradgedy either he wants to just reduce the numbers, then again if he becomes Prime Minister in the future he may change his mind on it, I was disapointed to his he say he is not interested in changing the law as he once was, I was pleased he replaced Malcolm Turnbull a (Pro - Choice) memember of parliament. -Gulfzero Charlie-Gulfzero Charlie (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed references to his Catholicism from the bioethics section as per WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. While his views on bioethics "coincidentally" align with Roman Catholic values, there are no references where he states that abortion is wrong because God says it is wrong. He has never used any religious arguments in this area, as far as I am aware. --Surturz (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

From page 180 of Battlelines:

"As an ambitious politician, I had never had the slightest intention of becoming a morals campaigner. Shortly after becoming health minister, though, I'd been asked to justify Medicare funding for up to 75,000 abortions every year. It was a question that compelled an answer. The first instalment, delivered in March 2004 as a speech entitled 'The Ethical Responsibilities of a Christian Politician', distinguished between deploring the frequency of abortion and trying to re-criminalise it. In a speech shortly after the 2004 election I had even endorsed, at least as an improvement on the current situation, Bill Clinton's observation that abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'.

"The subsequent parliamentary debate over the abortion drug RU486 exposed a post-Christian parliament's reservations about the suitability of Catholics for certain jobs. It also revealed a new consensus, even among MPs, that Australia's abortion rate was far too high. I had never supported any move to re-criminalise abortion because that would have stigmatised millions of Australian women facing an unexpected pregnancy. It seemed to be the best way to nudge the abortion rate down without affecting a women's right to choose. Even so, it was enough to make me the 'Capitan Catholic' of Australian politics."

It's pretty clear from this (and from other sources), that he is not in favour of criminalising abortion, and the "safe, legal and rare" comment is not a misrepresentation.  -- Lear's Fool 04:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
If you read 'The Ethical Responsibilities of a Christian Politician', you will see that he actually repudiates religious arguments against abortion; he clearly states that no belief in God is necessary to deplore the quantity of abortions performed in Australia. Extending the "100,000" quotation is also informative:

What does it say about the state of our relationships and our values that so many women (and their husbands, lovers and families) feel incapable of coping with a pregnancy or a child? To a pregnant 14 year old struggling to grasp what’s happening, a senior student with a whole life mapped out or a mother already failing to cope under difficult circumstances, abortion is the easy way out. It’s hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations. What seems to be considered far less often is avoiding situations where difficult choices might arise. Our society has rightly terrified primary school children about the horrors of smoking but seems to take it for granted that adolescents will have sex despite the grim social consequences of teenage single parenthood. If half the effort were put into discouraging teenage promiscuity as into preventing teenage speeding, there might be fewer abortions, fewer traumatised young women and fewer dysfunctional families. Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy approaching the scale (say) of Aboriginal life expectancy being 20 years less than that of the general community? No one wants to recreate the backyard abortion clinic (or to stigmatise the millions of Australians who have had abortions or encouraged others to do so) but is it really so hard to create a culture where people understand that actions have consequences and take responsibilities seriously?

I'm not saying we should exhaustively reiterate his position in the article - the reader has google for that - but we must avoid any suggestion that he is against abortion and euthanasia simply because he is a Roman Catholic. His stated positions are far more nuanced than that. --Surturz (talk) 06:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Something is driving him to lie on the matter. It is NOT a "fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies" in Australia every year. That number includes all hospital procedures that involve the end of a pregnancy, including all miscarriages. Nobody chooses a miscarriage. It's a well known ploy of anti-abortionists to use that figure, generally knowing it's a lie. Abbott is either stupid, ignorant, consciously pushing the Catholic Church driven anti-abortion campaign, or pandering to those who do. None of those options is a good look. We cannot know what actually drives his position. That he is a very public Catholic cannot be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
As with anything written by an active politician, Abbott's own utterances on this topic should be taken with a large grain of salt (eg, by acknowledging other published interpretations of this topic). Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Any implication that his views on bioethics are derived solely or largely from blind religious belief is contentious and should be backed up with high quality references as per WP:BLP. It is self-evident from his speeches and authorship that his position on bioethical issues is based on reasoning that extends beyond a simple faith in the Almighty. --Surturz (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Self-evident? That needs to be said by someone else, not you. What's the self-evident reason for him repeatedly using a very dishonest claim for the number of abortions? HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
His personal view on abortion is not self evident. His stated political position is - he's on the record multiple times. In the six months this discussion has been active, nobody has provided a reliable source stating that his view is anything other than this, nor any criticism of his use of the "100,000" figure. Show me the WP:RS!! --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
From the Australian Parliamentary Library (Something obviously readily available to Abbott):
"...Mr Abbott has previously said that 100 000 abortions take place in Australia each year...
Most other commentators put the number of abortions at considerably less than 100 000—at somewhere between 70 000 to 80 000. The truth, however, is that currently, it is impossible to accurately quantify the number of abortions which take place in Australia. This is because there is no national data collection on abortion, there is no uniform method of data collection, collation or publication across the states and territories, and the data sources that are available all have several significant limitations.
It is not possible to determine with any degree of precision what proportion of Medicare claims for these item numbers are for pregnancy terminations, since Medicare claims for actual abortions cannot be disaggregated from the other procedures claimed under these item numbers when the Medicare claim is lodged and processed (and therefore they are not disaggregated in the HIC’s data on the number of claims processed for these item numbers).
...the number of abortions funded by Medicare each year could range from around 20 000 to around 65 000."
Not a lot of certainty there, but Abbott repeatedly speaks and writes as if there is. Why? Religous motivation? Political motivations? We cannot know for sure. But let's be very careful when we come to stating what he believes and why. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Only one of us is trying to assert why he holds these opinions. And anyway, apparently his claim is only out by 20-30%, according to "most other commentators". I'm not exactly outraged. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
My point about the number of abortions is twofold. Firstly, there is no certainty about the number, despite it being used frequently by anti-abortionists as if there is. Secondly, the real figure is obviously less than that bandied about by the above-mentioned folk, including Abbott. All quite dishonest. As for Abbott's reasons for saying what he says, I can only guess. Circumstantial evidence plays a big part in me thinking that it IS due to his Catholic background, but I'm not a reliable source. Nor, given the above pretty good evidence about the number, is Abbott. His stated reasons can be listed as just that, his stated reasons, but certainly not as the actual reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I am not trying to argue why Abbott holds his opinions, but that it is a fact that those are his publicly held opinions.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is breaching wp:NOTAFORUM. We all have our own feelings about TA and his motivations, but we must use RSes for the encylopedia. Period. OzOke (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a simple case of arguing the merits or otherwise of Abbott. It's a little more complicated than that. It was highlighted that Abbott had personally stated that his view wasn't based on God, but because, among other things, the 100,000 abortions in Australia each year are a national tragedy. I think it's significant that Abbott would almost certainly know that that 100,000 figure he uses is wrong. We cannot validly give that as his reason for his beliefs, because he almost certainly knows it's nonsense. We can say that he said it, but it's important to state that the figure is wrong, not to prove Abbott a liar, but to avoid promulgating false information about the number of abortions in Australia in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a simple case of do you have WP:RS or not?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
A WP:RS for what? And the mere fact that I have to ask shows that it's not simple. HiLo48 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
For anything you propose to add to the article. If that is not the purpose of this discussion, I direct you to OzOke's comment above.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't the first to mention the 100,000 figure in this discussion. I am arguing that we must NOT mention it here, even though Abbott uses it, without clarifying that it's wrong. So, if it's not used, we don't need a source. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Nobody knows if it's wrong or not - Australia doesn't keep statistics. It may be appropriate to note that Abbott was criticised for use of the figure, and subsequently admitted that there was uncertainty about the exact number, if you can find a reliable source that quotes this. I have added some such material to Abortion in Australia. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
That's all good background info, thanks for the work Surturz.Observoz (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As a latecomer to this debate, may I suggest that Abbott's views on abortion are hardly worth the number of words devoted to them here. Quote him, then the party platform, and be done with it until there is a concrete change. The length of this discussion alone suggests a desire by some to insert into the available facts a conclusion that has no place on Wikipedia. At its most liberal extreme, the relevant section might, with appropriate references, point out that the abortion debate is a polarising issue. But I defy anyone to show me concrete, as opposed to rhetorical, differences between the policies of the major parties. Moreover, apply the following test: will the next election be fought, won or lost on the issue of abortion? If the answer is no, it's not an issue that should preoccupy an encyclopaedia; let's be done with this and concentrate on more productive uses for our time. Regards Peter Strempel | Talk 13:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AN discussion about sanction concerning this article

I've proposed lifting the 1RR sanction that applies to this article, at WP:AN#Proposal to revoke sanction no longer needed: WP:GS#Tony Abbott.  Sandstein  11:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The restriction has now been lifted, though obviously this article remains subject to the strict conditions set by WP:BLP Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Abbott nationality

Abbott was born in London, England, to Australian parents. In 1960, his family returned to Australia,

was recently changed to

On 7 September 1960, his family migrated to Australia on the ship Oronsay under the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme

The new text doesn't seem correct to me. The ref given is naa.gov.au, there is no specific link, I searched on the keyword "Oronsay", but only found 1930s era records. I found this link [2] which is obviously completely unreliable, but it references (Michael Duffy (2004) Latham and Abbott [Random House Australia], 8-10) to support this text:

Born 4 November 1957, London, UK to Australian expatriate parents who returned to Sydney in 1960.

. Has anyone got that book to check? --Surturz (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I've added the correct url to the reference, replacing naa.gov.au. It's http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/DetailsReports/ItemDetail.aspx?Barcode=7328488. Colonel Tom 06:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Confound it all, the link I posted seems to be inactive - it's tied to an active browsing session I created. The National Archives of Australia reference for the records is A1877, 07/09/1960 ORONSAY ABBOTT R H. I found the record by running a RecordSearch on their www.naa.gov.au website. Oronsay and Abbott as keywords, and 1960 to 1961 as date range retrieve the record easily - or you could search on the item barcode, 7328488 - but I'm out of practice here, and can't for the life of me see how to provide a url that will remain active. Could another more competent editor assist? Pretty please? Colonel Tom 09:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I replaced your dud link with a cn tag before reading your post. OK, I've confirmed the page, but damn that is one frustrating website. The reference "NAA: A1877, 07/09/1960 ORONSAY ABBOTT R H" is probably enough to satisfy WP:V - there's nothing in WP policy that says we must have a working link. I'll replace the cn tag with a link to the main website and a comment on how to get there.
      • However, I think we need to be careful asserting that Abbott's parents were not Australian as per WP:BLP. I can find this link and this link saying otherwise. I suspect we would be violating WP:OR if we used the naa link to assert that. It is possible that they were merely passengers on the ship:

        ABBOTT Richard Henry born 6 January 1924; Fay (nee Peters) born 23 May 1933; Anthony John born 4 November 1957; Jane Elizabeth born 25 January 1959; travelled per ORONSAY departing Tilbury on 7 September 1960 under the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme

        I can read this two ways, that the Abbotts were under the scheme, or just that the ship itself was part of the scheme, but the Abbotts may or may not have been migrants. --Surturz (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Surely there's a secondary source we can use for this. Government files held by the NAA are useful, but they can be difficult to interpret and it's not like Abbott is an obscure figure or there's a 'birther' type argument which needs to be settled through reference to the primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm having trouble finding one! This Savva article >[3]< mentions his parents as Richard and Fay, so I think it highly unlikely that the NAA record is for a different family. It's not that big a deal of course, it's a matter of public record that PM Gillard's parents were Ten Pound Poms. --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Curioser and curioser! For fun I ordered the image of the record (apparently it will become publicly available online). Since then the record has disappeared! I did find this link though: >link< which seems to be the same ship. --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Record hadn't disappeared, there was a typo in my search terms. The digital copy is now available: (link), which shows that his father was originally English, and his mother Australian. Both Australian now of course. I have updated the article to match. Mystery solved! --Surturz (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Good find. Not trying to make any major point here, but you say "Both Australian now of course." Are you sure? As far as I know, there has never been a formal requirement for UK immigrants from that time to take out Australian citizenship. Many proudly did, and many proudly didn't. It's not a big issue. Just curious. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible he's still a pom. I don't think there is any need to say one way or the other in the article. Looks like his father had an interesting career - steelworker, RAAF pilot, then dentist! Actually... that's interesting, RAAF pilot - not RAF pilot. Hmm. --Surturz (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly useful link: [4]. --Surturz (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Interesting article. And no, Tony's dad's nationality is irrelevant to the article. (Just as where Tony was born is irrelevant to whether he becomes PM or not. Those who worry about such things have watched too much American TV.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I just realised this. You’d have to go back to 1915-16 to find the last time we had a Prime Minister (Billy Hughes) and an Opposition Leader (Joseph Cook) who were both born outside Australia (both in the UK, as it happens, just like Gillard and Abbott). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A. Abbott's nickname is ABBO

His minders call him that in pubs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.39.146 (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
And why in pubs, of all places? Surely they'd be watching their Ps and Qs while they were anywhere in public, if only to protect their master's reputation, as any loyal staffers would. But who knows what goes on behind closed doors? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservative

Abbott and his positions should be described as "conservative" per reliable sources. If there are no objections I'll make it so. – Lionel (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote re Barrie Unsworth in the 'Enter' section

Abbott's quoted from a Monica Attard interview as saying "Barrie Unsworth was the best deal Premier that New South Wales had ever had." I'm not sure what "best deal" means in this context. ("best damn...", perhaps?) In an attempt to clarify, I went to the source - [[5]] which offers links to the audio in mp3, windows media or RM formats - but all of the links are dead. I wonder if the transcript could be inaccurate? Can anyone suggest a way to check this, or to confirm the accuracy? Or explain the quote to me? :) Thanks, Colonel Tom 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it adds much. I vote for deletion.Observoz (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"The most effective opposition leader in Australia's history"?

User:Observoz has added to the article two interesting facts. Firstly, "Abbott continued to criticise the government...", and secondly, "ABC 7:30 host Chris Uhlmann called Abbott "perhaps the most effective opposition leader in Australia's history...".

I reverted it as trivia and asked him to discuss it. He restored it, without discussion, but telling me in an Edit summary "Not trivia - Uhlmann is a journalist of considerable standing making a professional judgment and one being repeated by many across the political spectrum."

Well, the first quote simply tells us nothing. It's what opposition leaders do. They criticise the government.

The second is either biased sycophancy from someone who should be (and almost always is) much more independent, or meant as a somewhat ironic joke. I believe it's the latter.

I also believe that the additions add nothing of value to the article, unless we are collecting (seemingly?) pro-Abbott comments. They don't tell us anything new about Abbott in any concrete way at all. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to add individual assessments of people from journalists. We could create a whole section of the article (or even a stand alone article) with positive, negative and indifferent assessments of Abbot by various journalists and commentators, and it wouldn't advance things one bit. For instance, should we also add praise of Abbot from Miranda Divine and abuse of him from the Green Left Weekly? Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Given that so many voices are calling Abbott an unusually effective opposition leader, I think that some reference to it should be included as a record of this time in Australia politics. I think Uhlmann's version is useful - but so many journalists and opinionists have made the same assessment (from Paul Kelly to Graham Richardson) that there are several ways to frame the sentence.
BUT
If we want to fix a rule that journalistic assessments are always and everywhere inappropriate for this page then ok, then we will have to delete the line: "According to the Sun-Herald newspaper, student newspapers called him a "right-wing thug and bully who used sexist and racist tactics to intimidate his opponents"". In other words, Nick-D, the Green Left Weekly - or it's 1970s equivalent - is already quoted in the article and has been for some months, with no complaints from Hilo48. If Uhlmann must go, then so must the anonymous "student newspapers" Observoz (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I must admit, Uhlmann is no rinky-dink press-jockey. I think the Uhlmann quote can be included without breaching WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especially given the fact that the general view of Abbott being particularly effective at criticising the government is quite prevalent. Still, the fact that he is considered effective can be stated as a matter of fact; that he is the "most effective" must be presented merely as a matter of Uhlmanns opinion. A lot of the quotes in the body - the "thug and bully" one particularly - could do with some cleanup. This is a BLP, remember. Green Left Weekly (or the opinions of his former adversaries) shouldn't cut it.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what a rinky-dink press jockey is, and none of my original comments have been refuted yet. Why should the statement of one TV personality count for any more than the opinion of anyone else in the country. Observoz's claim that "so many voices are calling Abbott an unusually effective opposition leader" is completely unsupported, and still largely irrelevant to the article, which is supposed to be about Abbott, not these mysterious "voices". I still suspect what Ulmann said could be pure irony. There is no evidence to the contrary, and what he said would hardly be an objective statement. It has no place in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
What standards are there for "most effective Opposition Leader"? It's going to be opinion all the way. One could nominate Bob Hawke, who became PM from OL in a few weeks. Or Gough Whitlam, who effectively terminated the careers of two PMs. Malcolm Fraser, who destroyed Gough Whitlam in eight months.Tony Abbott whittled Labor back from a landslide win in 2007 to minority status in 2010 and looks set to reduce Labor to a Queensland-style rump.
However, all of the above feats were assisted by Prime Ministerial incompetence or a strong "It's Time" factor. Or both, in the case of Billy McMahon. Chris Uhlmann's opinion may be a good one - or not - but we really should have some objective goalposts to measure performance before we include such statements. --Pete (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48 are you really saying this is the one and only time you have heard Abbott described as an unusually effective opposition leader?? I had assumed that you were an editor who would be widely reading and watching analysis of aus politics. Evidently I was wrong. Personally I see nothing wrong in calling people like Rudd, Howard, Hawke, Fraser or Whitlam effective opposition leaders - nor in this case Abbott. But, as you seem to be requesting sources, and that is your right, so here's a tiny sample:
The Australian is making the following assessment:
ALP stalwart Graham Richardson goes further, when asked about whether Abbott or Turnbull were better Opposition Leaders and offered this assessment:
Ross Fitzgerald, Emeritus Professor of History and Politics at Griffith University, [6]:
There are of course other sources making similar assessments, but I'd of thought that the ABC is good one. Perhaps Hilo48, you might concede the point that this is a point of view being commonly expressed, rather than make remarks about "mysterious voices". Observoz (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "voices", I simply reused your words. The problem with those sources is that you're not using them in the article. You have chosen one, and I suspect that it's not what you say it is. And anyway, including what some commentators (or just one?) say about a politician is very dangerous ground. It's always possible to find a contrary view. It's for that reason that I rarely listen to political commentary. I listen to political news, and make up my own mind. I have no intention of sharing my opinion here because, like yours, and Ulmann's, it's irrelevant to what Abbott actually is. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious from this discussion that there is no consensus to add this material. Time for it to go. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Thug and bully" quote

I've removed the student politics quote mentioned above by Observoz. It's effectively hearsay and unsourced to any specific person or publication. However, the flavour of the Sun-Herald piece rings true enough in its description of student politics in those post Whitlam days, when many people who would not otherwise have become university students - such as myself - piled in with the abolition of fees. My recollections of those days were of occasional violence, skullduggery and dirty tactics and hyperbole in every student political publication. I really don't think that some unsourced bit of amateur journalism is truly encyclopaedic. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Even Abbott doesn't believe Abbott

In May 2010 Abbott revealingly said in a television interview “The statements that need to be taken absolutely as gospel truth are those carefully prepared, scripted remarks”. [81]

This was Tony Abbott, talking about himself, in a live mainstream television Interview. It is brief, revealing, informative, an analysis by the man himself, from his own mouth, to a public, major audience. As such it is not party political. I would contend that trying to cover up or hide this vital, and now famous, quotation would be only done with party political intentionRichardb43 (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed it: your wording was not neutral, and the source provided was an opinion article by Anthony Albanese! I agree that this should probably be in the article as it was a significant issue, but that sure isn't the way to go about it. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say you're wrong on that, Richard. I'd also say that if you think this is vital and famous, you might like to think about a better source than Punch. --Pete (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just put in the first reference I could find at the time. I've now added more solid sources, inlcuding the video and audio of Abbott, giving full context. If you have objection around NPOV, show me the words that make it not neutral. It is at least as relevant to understanding Tony Abbott as a politician, his main occupation, as his competing in a Triathalon.--Richardb43 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It was an off the cuff remark about off the cuff remarks. And beaten up by the ALP. About as significant as the "real Julia" remark that the Libs made a meal of. Nobody's denying he said it, but what we really need is a good source showing the significance you claim. --Pete (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
On looking at the sources provided, none of them seem to follow the line you take. How about you give the whole quote in context, find a more neutral wording, and then consider how "vital and important" it actually is? Why is it necessary to include this quote - and your interpretation - some years after the event? My reading is that the section heading you've chosen here says a lot about your agenda. --Pete (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a significant quote. Nothing like "non-core promises" or "L-A-W tax cuts". Shouldn't be in the article. --Surturz (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
However, the wikiquote folks might accept it. Over there ----> Tony Abbott quotes --Surturz (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought it was one of the more imaginative statements from any politician on that perennial issue of not keeping "promises". They all break promises. Abbott's "justification" was better than most. I don't think that mentioning it gives any advantage to the ALP. I not a fan of Abbott, but I reckon that was a smart remark. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
"Workchoices is dead, buried, cremated" isn't in there. Why should this quote be in there? --Surturz (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to chew over the wording for this before including it. It had no significant effect on Abbott's career and he doesn't have much of a profile for broken promises or evasive language. Unlike some. Including it now seems to be unnecessarily aimed at casting doubt on any future statements from Abbott. --Pete (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
On looking at Jula Gillard, I see no inclusion of her "There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead" promise. If we are looking for significant political quotes, that's way ahead of this one of Abbott's. And yet we don't include it. To me, that sets a bit of a bar for notability that must be reached and passed, if we are to be at all objective in our coverage of Australian political leaders. --Pete (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, leave it out, but if there's any bias on display here, Pete, you're the champion. You missed my point entirely, and just took an opportunity to attack Gillard. Please grow some objectivity. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed it. My bias is towards Wikipolicies, They work. --Pete (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Which Wikipolicy demanded that you write "Unlike some" above? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If you make an accusation, not just of bias, but of championship bias, you should provide diffs and an explanation. I mentioned Gillard because she is a similarly prominent Australian political leader, and we should be even-handed. We're not talking backbenchers here, but politicians of prominence. On the subject of veracity, which the OP chose to make an issue in his his wording here, Gillard's broken promise of a carbon tax is not included in her biographical article, so why should Wikipedia include a less significant quote in this article about her direct political rival? That would be bias. --Pete (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I know from experience that it's pointless trying to have a rational, objective discussion with you on political matters. I will simply point out that you didn't answer my question. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reinstated the version Nick-D put in. Clearly we are not going to agree. So why not go put in the Julia Gillard quote on Carbon Tax, it is significant... as long as you point out that there is no "carbon Tax" as such, but rather a Caron Pollution Charge under an Emissions Trading Scheme with a fixed price for the first three years. That Abboot and his cronies in News and Shock Jocks continually misrepresent this would not excuse such a misrepresentation being included in Wikipedia. Also, as I did, you might like to include a reference to the full context of her saying the phrase. - re: "How about you give the whole quote in context," the references do give that. I thought the short quote was enough for this encyclopaedic content.--Richardb43 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Richard, could you please gain consensus for your edit before putting it back in? Australian political articles can be fairly controversial affairs, and your comments above aren't helping. I'm not averse to its inclusion in some form, but not out of context and couched in inflammatory terms. My understanding of Abbott's statement wasn't that he didn't believe himself, as you indicate, but that he rightly viewed off the cuff remarks as less reliable than considered policy statements. A refreshing piece of political honesty. Trying to portray it as something like "I speak rubbish and cannot be trusted" isn't what he intended, and he clarified his intentions subsequently. If we are going to include it, we should include the full story. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Views on abortion (again?)

I've just reverted this good faith edit by Surturz. Seeing as Abbott described addressing the the number of abortions being conducted as a "national priority" while he was health minister (eg, the Minister with carriage of this issue at the Federal level), and also described it as being a "national tragedy" equivalent to low Indigenous life expectancy, it seems to be a rather significant aspect of his political career, especially when his attempted ban on RU-486 is taken into account (rather unusually, his attempt to ban this drug while health minister (again, the Minister with the carriage over such a decision) ended in a vote against this by much of his own party). Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone change this

I'm no expert but I don't think this is right

" federal leader of the centre-right Liberal Party of Australia, and a questionable excuse for a human being" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.120.182 (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Timeshift (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Honorable

I have a massive problem with the term 'honorable' being attached to his name, surely we can do away with this as it's clearly not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.212.100 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is appropriate. All people sworn of the Federal Executive Council, which means Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, are "The Honourable" for life, barring exceptional circumstances. It does not apply to ordinary members and senators, although they are referred to in debates as "the honourable mmember", "my honourable colleague" etc. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Views on Women

I turned to wiki to get an understanding Tony Abbott's reaction to the Julia Gillard 'misogyny speech' and was surprised to see nothing on this topic at all. Tony Abbott's profile internationally is almost entirely down to this incident yet I couldn't even find one line saying, for example, 'On October 16, 2012, Tony Abbott was targeted by Julia Gillard, the then Australian Prime Minister, in a speech attacking misogyny and sexism'. The speech was widely reported around the world <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/international-reaction-to-gillard-speech/4305294>.


When looking at the history of this page, I noticed that a section about Julia Gillard's "sexism and misogyny" speech (directed at Tony Abbott) was removed. As Abbott's views on women and women's rights have been talked about (both positively and negatively) in the media and in politics, should there be a section on this, perhaps in the "Political views" section? The Giant Purple Platypus (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My problem with that section was that it was presented as Abbott's views on women, but was actually a piece about Gillard's views on what she believes are Abbott's views about women. Under the circumstances, Gillard's perception of Abbott's views is interesting, and may be worth covering, but the doesn't equate to an account of what Abbott believes. So I'm not really comfortable with presenting Gillard's perceptions of Abbott in a political views section, as we don't know how they relate to Abbott's actual views, if that makes sense. It might fit better into a section on how Abbott is perceived by the community, but such a section risks being a bit of a BLP nightmare. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed - for obvious reasons, we can't present Gillard's views on Abbott as being factual (and vice-versa). In regards to public perception of Abbott, there has been some polling of how the public view his attitudes towards women recently, as well as some commentary from various academics which could be usable. However, turning this into a section of the article would be pretty tricky. It seems better to attempt to properly describe Abbott's various actions and statements and let readers reach their own views, but that's easier said than done! Nick-D (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The section I reverted was all about Julia Gillard's attack on Tony Abbot. It was quite unbalanced and was entirely Gillard material. We learnt nothing about Abbot's views on women. I actually think Abbot has a case to answer on this, but we should use his own statements and actions to illustrate his views, not Gillard's understandably partisan opinions. --Pete (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Pete (partially) - I'm in two minds about the creation of such a section, as I can see it being a partisan-magnet and pretty much ending up sounding something like "Labor said this, Liberal said that". If there are no actual policy positions being detailed (such as abortion or paid maternity leave, which I believe are already covered), I think it should stay out.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've posted a report concerning Alans1977's edit warring at WP:AN3. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Please resists from your constant acts of vandalism. The material I've added is referenced and notable. Alans1977 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit as there is clearly no consensus for this addition. --Nug (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that previously here about this subject has been against the inclusion of the Gillard speech as this has been Gillard's view of Abbott's view on women's place in society and not words out of his own mouth. I'm presuming then that the addition of 'Tony Abbott has, while he was a much younger man, previously written "I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons".[118] When asked about this statement, later on in life, Abbott refused to say that those were no longer his views.[119] Abbott has also previously said that "I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both… they both need to be moderated, so to speak"', will be fairly non controversial, being that these are words out of Abbott's own mouth which are indicative of his views on women's place in society. Alans1977 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I see a lot of new material in an established article on a political figure and nothing much has been happening recently, I can be sure that it's a whole biased segment, either an attack piece or a praise job. Some zealot is out to rewrite history and doesn't think anyone will notice, least of all the established editing crew who have generally talked about the topic at length, thrashing out some good balanced text. May I suggest that it will be easier for everybody including yourself if you discuss your edits first? Otherwise you'll just raise a bunch of hackles, you'll be constantly reverted and it will take years for people to trust you. --Pete (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Quoting Tony Abbott's own words and presenting them in a non-emotional manner displays bias? And please explain to me how a transcript from a television interview with Tony Abott is a poor source. Alans1977 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
And Tony Abbott's views on women's place in society are not an important aspect of his political views? I think that 50% + of the population would disagree with you heavily. Alans1977 (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Did you actually mean "I actually think Abbot has a case to answer on this, but we should use his own statements and actions to illustrate his views", when you wrote it? Alans1977 (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Alans, the problem as I see it is twofold. First, the section is presented in a very biased way. The very title "Women's place in society" strikes me as evoking a "women should stay in their place" attitude. A neutral term like "Feminism" or even "Gender politics" would be more appropriate. Second, and more importantly, no policy positions are presented. It is just a pair of quotes from Abbott in his student days. No context. The section presents numerous opportunities for exploring this. You could mention his opposition to gender quotas, his support for paid maternity leave and the baby bonus, the criticism he has received for his supposed problem with women and his response to that criticism, his general antipathy toward gender politics (that might be the place to put some of the more widely reported quotes from his days on SUU council). Just plopping some ancient quotes in the article is not very useful for the encyclopaedia, IMHO. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Without, of course, making it too long and therefore giving the topic undue weight in what is a biography, which must summarise the subject's whole life. --Pete (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
LOL at Yeti Hunter for suggesting that "Feminism" is a neutral term. I am cautious about using any quote from 30 something years earlier in someone's life to give any indication or implication of what that person's view might be today. My views on many things have changed dramatically over time. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, more neutral, at least :) -Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I personally see nothing to be cautious about as far as using 30 year old quotes goes, especially when much later in life the person quoted is given a chance to comment on/clarify/take back those views and they refuse. Alans1977 (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Like I said, there might be a case for a short, neutral inclusion of some of the material you have mentioned previously. But it will have to be done in a different way than before, and discussed here on the talk page first, otherwise you will probably just end up getting reverted again. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I feel some reference to Abbott's statements on women and that he has been criticised for them is warranted. Before I work something up does anyone have an objection? FlatOut 00:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the nature of this debate it'd probably be prudent to discuss any proposed changes on the Talk page first, once you have a draft. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo

multiculturalism is spelled incorrectly under the "Post Howard Government: shadow minister" section.

Rudd is spelled incorrectly under "Election 2010" section.

Thanks. They're fixed now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Gay marriage

According to the ABC news, Tony holds this position despite his sister being gay... Quote:

Both Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd repeated Labor's call for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to allow a conscience vote for Coalition MPs.

However, Mr Abbott, whose sister is gay, says his position has not changed.

"I respect Kevin Rudd, I accept that he's entitled to change his mind. I certainly haven't changed my mind," he said.

"We took a particular policy into the last election. The policy that we took into the last election is that we support the existing Marriage Act.

"My party room was strongly of the view that we were not going to say one thing before an election and do the opposite after an election." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.161.88 (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fitness and exercise regime of Tony Abbott

I think it is important to include a section on how Tony Abbott keeps fit, has taken part in trilatilons, 19 day cycle rides, etc. IMO this is a core part of his belief system and would be difficult for him to keep up given the grueling routine of a politician. Note for people who now a little about Australian politicians I do not support Tony Abbott's party (liberal) but vote green. I think this information should be added as it is so notable for a politician to be fit. User: johnscotaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnscotaus (talk • contribs) 11:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any objection to that, provided you apply WP:UNDUE. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
And find some decent sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Point of clarification

Nannarob (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC) in the article the following text is a little unclear - "Dick and his parents moved to Australia during the Second World War.[5][6][7] On 7 September 1960, Tony's family moved to Australia on the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme ship Oronsay" - if Dick and his parents moved to Australia in WW2 then did they or Dick only return to England where presumably he either married there or before returning and then Tony was born in England in 1957 - then the whole family returned to Australia with Tony as a three year old??? Nannarob (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

How did the family qualify for the APMS when the mother is Australian? Jim Michael (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cabinet Minister

It states: Among the health care initiatives instigated by Abbott was the Nurse Family Partnership, a long term scheme aimed at improving conditions for indigenous youth by improving mother-child relationships. The scheme was successful in reducing child abuse and improving school retention rates.[42] I can find no figures that support this statement. WasteOfSpace1945 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Now prime minister

No. Abbott is not PM until sworn in by the Governor General. HiLo48 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not Prime Minister. Not Prime Minister elect

Tony Abbott is the presumptive next Prime Minister. But until the machinations of the Westminster system grind through to their conclusion he is not the Prime Minister. The term 'Prime Minister elect' is meaningless in the Westminster system. Prime Ministers are appointed by the Governor-General, and yes this normally happens on the basis of parliamentary and party votes.

Can't we just wait a bit until things settle down? 60.240.207.146 (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We seem to recreate this particular wheel every election. The facts are these:
  • Everyone acknowledges that Westminster-system prime ministers are not elected by the national voting populace, but by the members of their own party. Only the voters in the PM's own seat/electorate/division/constituency get to directly vote for him, but even then, just as their local member.
  • Despite this, it has become extremely common and widespread usage, certainly in Australia if not elsewhere, for someone in Abbott's current position to be referred to as "Prime Minister-elect". That's just the way it is. It probably reflects the presidential style of politicking that goes on these days, whereby most people talk of voting "for Abbott"" or "for Rudd" or "for Palmer" or whomever, rather than "for the Liberal Party/Coalition" or "for Labor" or whatever. Even the leaders themselves talk about voting "for Mr Abbott" or "for Mr Rudd" when cautioning voters what not to do.
  • The term "Prime Minister-designate" is sometimes seen, but nowhere nearly as much as "Prime Minister-elect". By overwhelming popular usage, Tony Abbott is the Prime Minister-elect between the evening of the election and whenever he's sworn in, and no appeal to technicalities can change that. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Abbott is indeed Prime Minister-elect, but Prime Minister-designate is not an archaic term. The term "-elect" is used for the presumptive government that has been elected and is thus entitled to take office. Likewise, the term "-designate" is used for a presumptive government that is entitled to take office but has not been elected. The period of time after Kevin Rudd defeated Julia Gillard in the leadership ballot of June 2013 to when he was appointed by the Governor General, he was the Prime Minister-designate as Tony Abbott is the Prime-Minister elect. Azirus (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Deputy

In the box of the right hand side of the page where Abbott's various offices are listed, Julie Bishop is listed as his "Deputy" under his most recent role (PM). Yes, she's the deputy leader of hte Liberal party, but she's not (and won't be) the Deputy Prime Minister (Warren Truss will be). It's not that the information is incorrect, as she is his deputy in one sense, but it might be misleading to some readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.4.228 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Community Activities

This needs expansion - he has done a lot more than is listed here and frankly is not given nearly the credit he deserves. When you compare this article to the obsequious drivel written about Bob Carr in his article, it is frankly an embarrassment to Wikipedia.

Get with it editors, especially if you expect me to donate!!

--1.125.170.157 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll treat that as a good faith post (it possibly doesn't deserve it) by asking what you would like to see listed, and where are such activities described in reliable sources? HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria

He has come out strongly against Australia intervening in Syria, which is contrary to previous coalition approaches in the middle east. This should be mentioned.

--1.125.170.157 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Minority Government

I've just removed some material from the lead which was theoretic-type material about the rarity of minority governments at the federal level in Australia and what the term means. This material is not really very relevant in this context given that this article is a biography of Abbott, and not about the features of Australia's political system. Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Nick-D The term "minority government" means something very specific and neutral and the purpose of the section was to emphaisise that technical definition and restore neutrality. It was relevant because it was hitherto applied selectively only to the Gillard government, which plays into the hands of the disparaging use media (even though the Gillard government passed more bills per month than any other Australian government). Currently all mentions of "minority government" have been removed and "coalition" (small "c") is used because that is the precise AEC definition for government that does not rule with a majority of seats held by a single party.

The article by Professor Botterill draws on that AEC definition to state that if the Liberal Party does not have a majority of seats in its own right, it cannot rule in anything other than a minority government. To try and discredit her article by only referring to the heading ("Minority government likely to continue after Saturday") is disengenuous because it ignores her statement that most periods of Liberals in power have been in coalition, and that any coalition is a "minority government". If anyone has an ideological problem with this truth then they would be wise to stop using the term minority government (which is what I am offering with the current edit). Sqgl (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling Abbott's new government a minority government is just silly. If we do that, it will require a change to dozens of articles about federal and state governments in Australia for the past 60 years. 118.209.43.233 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
They're not minority governments. The reason we have the Coalition (big C) is because it is a formal, agreed-upon electoral and governmental alliance. Both Liberals and Nationals are government members. It's the same reason Labor is not governing from a minority in Tasmania right now. (That article, by the way, is not by Professor Botterill, nor does it say anything of the sort of what you're implying. Did you mean to link to something else?) Frickeg (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If we are going to make the claim that "the party did not gain a majority of seats in its own right to form government", we need a source to support that, especially given the changed circumstances involving the presence of the LNP and the nature of the Coalition. At the moment the source being used [7] only offers a definition of coalition and says nothing about the outcome of the election, and the article currently reads as if the Liberals formed a minority government with the help of other parties, which is not the standard understanding of the situation in Australia. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Background?

Parents' occupation? Apparently wealthy.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Dick Abbott has, or had, "one of the largest orthodontist practices in Australia". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I've added some details. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Blues

Looking at this edit, it seems that "citation required" might have been a better move than deletion of a widely-available fact. Kevin Rudd is as good a source as any, I suppose, to describe Tony Abbott as a boxing champion. My understanding is that Blues are awarded for representing the university in sport, which Abbott did in football and boxing. A boxer can emerge a champion after one bout - it's not like a football season. --Pete (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

"Champion" reads like puffery - he was in four amateur student bouts. That's not sufficient to describe him as a "champion boxer". - Bilby (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Is a politician really the best source we can find for whether he received a Blue for boxing? (I really doubt if Pete/Skyring would use Rudd as a source for much else.) I don't think it's good enough. Surely there's a better source. The university itself springs to mind. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. "Champion" implies something like a headline title, and I can't find any source that showed his win(s) in the ring as anything special in Oxford/Cambridge matchups. The blue itself is well-sourced - I used Rudd as a source to impress HiLo. --Pete (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I know that's meant to be a joke, but it demonstrates the simplicity of Abbott fans. Not being an Abbott fanboy does not automatically make me a Rudd fan. The world is a little more complex than that. And so, if "the blue itself is well-sourced", where the bloody hell is this good source? Local Australian media repeating unsubstantiated claims made by other local media during a political campaign does not a good source make. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
True. I don't think there's any doubt about it - a Google search on "Tony Abbott" and "boxing blue" brings up many references - such as this early one - and I can't find any where anybody seriously questions the claim. What sort of sources do we have for other Oxford or Cambridge Blues? Do we have access to some sort of university database, as you suggest? We have a good source from Oxford which also includes Bob Hawke and his Guinness record, one which generated a lot of Australian pride.
We can infer that Abbott won a Blue because we claim that Oxford participants in the annual Varsity Match against Cambridge are automatically awarded a Blue and Tony Abbott was the Oxford champion in two of these matches: It would be good to hear of other Oxford students who won a Blue in their debut in a sport but one such character is the current leader of the Opposition in Australia, Tony Abbott. He remains keen on fitness. As a student at the University of Sydney, he had played rugby but the Queen’s College Rhodes Scholar told a journalist that he had never boxed before his first varsity bout. Martin Flanagan reports in the Australian newspaper, The Age, that, ‘In his first bout, against Cambridge, he knocked his opponent out cold in 45 seconds.
Returning to the article, could you explain why you removed the material? It was already sourced in one of our external links - Tony Abbott's personal website. --Pete (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I removed it in accordance with the most important Wikipedia principle, sourcing. The single source for that line in the text mentioned neither of the key words in the claim, "champion" or "blue" (or blues, which is just plain wrong). It was almost irrelevant to what the text said, so the text didn't belong. But due to my prompting you have now found what seems to me a good, independent source, this one. Well done. I've added it to the article. Why wasn't something like that there in the first place? HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the article, could you explain why you removed the material? It was already sourced in one of our external links - Tony Abbott's personal website. --Pete (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I quite often doubt your competence here. Who the hell is going to look in the external links for sourcing of text? And Abbott's own website? LOL. That's the worst possible primary source. Let's face it. You are arguing here because it's me. You have a big problem. Seen your psychologist lately? Obsession can really cause you problems. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why you removed sourced material. Not only that, but it is common knowledge, and easily checked, even if we don't have the best possible source, which would be, as you suggest, an Oxford University database. Now, sometimes I do the same sort of thing, and if we can work out together why we do it, then we might have a better relationship in future. Wikipedia shouldn't be a battleground between gentle people. --Pete (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
IT WASN'T FUCKING SOURCED!!!!!!!!! A mention of something in an external link that's nowhere near the statement in the text is NOT an acceptable method of sourcing! And you really ARE obsessed. With me for stalking, and with Tony Abbott for your love interest. Not everybody has the same "common knowledge" about him as members of his fan club do. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Get a grip, mate. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Pete's nonsense and obsession with me should be obvious to all by now. I'll quit here for now. If he posts on this again, his motive will be obvious. And it will have nothing to do with improving the encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It was sourced. Check the existing references - all of them properly linked within the text and listed as references:
  • Tony was born in London in November 1957 of Australian parents who moved back to Sydney in 1960. He graduated from Sydney University with degrees in law and economics, then achieved an MA and two blues in boxing as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford." ABC
  • Abbott was almost overwhelmed by Oxford University, where so many of the former Empire's leaders had gone before him. It appealed to his need to seek identity through attaching himself to older institutions and people. Oxford gave him two boxing blues and a degree in philosophy and politics SMH (linked twice)
  • Won two Blues in boxing Personal site (linked twice within text)
  • At the end of 1980 Tony Abbott won a Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University. He came away with an MA in politics and philosophy, and two Oxford blues for boxing. ABC
  • Graduated from the University of Sydney with a law and economics degree. He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, majoring in politics and philosophy, and won two Blue awards in boxing. Reuters
All you had to do was read our article, HiLo. Properly and repeatedly sourced. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think HiLo is saying that we cannot rely on claims made in a subject's personal site (the boxing issue), and so he discounts it as reliable. Anyone can assert they've done stuff, but we need independent sources. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. Said I'd stop, but Pete keeps talking bullshit, either through incompetence or because he is obsessively and irrationally determined to prove me wrong. I have explained this before. Don't know why Pete didn't get it. Given how much he attacks me it's hard to remain polite on this, but I'll try. So read this carefully Pete. When I removed the sentence referring to Abbott being a champion boxer and having won boxing blues (sic), the sentence was followed by a single reference which mentioned neither matter. That simple fact made the major claims of the sentence unsourced. There was no reference attached to the sentence to support it. It's irrelevant that there may have been supporting information in an external link. It wasn't where it should have been; where a reader would need to find it. That the external link was a primary source also made it unacceptable, but that wasn't my main point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There were four - at least four, I didn't check every reference we listed - existing sources excluding the personal site which we linked twice within the text and once as an external link at the end of the article. All of them saying the same thing. Without breaking a sweat I can find dozens more we didn't use. We now have three more, including the Oxford site, which wasn't difficult to find. Granted, the statement was not directly supported by a source at the end of the sentence, but there are two within a few sentences both before and after. Given the amount of scrutiny Tony Abbott - or any major party leader - receives it is hard to believe that such a claim had not been checked many times by many people. If it had been falsely claimed on Tony Abbott's own website, then it would have been exposed and made very public during the election campaign(s). Some of those sources date back several years. I dare say that they have been in the article almost as long. One ABC source (Oxford gave him two boxing blues and a degree in philosophy and politics) has been in the article since 2011. How come it is only now, with Tony Abbott about to be sworn in as Prime Minister, that HiLo is searching through the article deleting longstanding well-sourced positive factual material? And why not simply ask for a citation? --Pete (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope. Nothing constructive there. Just an awful lot of "I'll prove HiLo's wrong". Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, you were wrong. The material was already well-sourced within the article. I've politely explained why, with references, and I've asked why you removed sourced material. We all make mistakes, it's no great shame to admit it if we plan to do better in future. --Pete (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
LOL HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Early life and family

Abbott's family history has significant gaps. Dick emigrated to Australia during WW2, and then again in 1960? No mention of how Fay came to be in the UK to marry and migrate back? WWGB (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead photo

The consensus is clearly for Photo A, as is currently in the article. StAnselm (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2013 (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.

Ok. So we have a bit of a dispute as to which photo to use as the lead:

  • Photo A
    Photo A
  • Photo B
    Photo B

I have a strong preference for photo A, while ‎Andreas11213 has a strong preference for photo B. Personally, I think photo B looks distorted, and makes him look clownish, but it is true that it is more recent than photo A, and looks more personable. Any preferences? (And I have no objection to other ideas as well). - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You have summed up the situation well. I prefer Photo A as a portrait, but it is older. Politician photographs are hard; we generally can't use the official photographs - in fact I was quite surprised to see Photo B with a usable license. I think we should continue to use Photo A, but keep an eye open for a good, usable portrait. We got some usable US government photographs when John Howard visited the USA, but they came back looking rather odd. Maybe if Tony Abbott could be persuaded to visit New York for our benefit? A pity we can't just lift photographs off the parliamentary webpages - they are professionally posed and lit, and have the advantage of being approved by the subject. --Pete (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer A: B looks distorted, probably as it was cropped down from an image in which Abbott wasn't the main subject. Interestingly, all the words at www.pm.gov.au are being published under a CC license but for some dumb reason the photos are not: [8]. The current official photo ([9]) isn't terribly good though, and looks a few years old. Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Photo A (serious Tony) is far preferable to Photo B (grinning, somewhat goofy Tony, cropped from a larger posed photo). If a license can be obtained for the official one mentioned above, so much the better. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I vote for Photo A, per Bilby, Skyring, Nick-D, and Yeti-Hunter. --Surturz (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't see a single thing wrong with photo A - it's of such quality that it should remain his photo, I can't see another photo topping it. Photo B, where to start... Timeshift (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2013 (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.

"Landslide" victory?

That is a highly contestable point and hardly a neutral point of view either. Abbott won on a swing of 3.62% in any other election where it wasn't already 50-50 in the house this would have been a relatively meaningless swing. In actuality the swing represents more of a disillusionment with the ALP than it does a major victory for the LNP and what was delivered was actually a 1998 or 2004 result which means Labor is within striking distance of being elected to office in the same sense of Beazley in 1998 and Rudd who actually achieved victory in 2007. The swing for Labor to be reelected is less than 3.62%, this is not a "landslide" by any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.191.214 (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We are required to use reliable sources rather than our own opinions, and the term is adequately sourced. However, this brings up a talking point spanning many articles. HiLo48, for recent example, contends that Rudd's 2007 win was hardly a landslide victory. At what point is an election victory a landslide? I'm looking for historical or authoritative sources, here, rather than whatever we might collectively feel is a good thing. I'm somewhat bemused by a common American definition where the result, rather than the swing is used as the criterion. Two similar lopsided victories would both be seen as landslide wins, even if the second merely repeated the result of the first. The Australian sources seem to require two things: a change of government and a substantial swing - in seats or 2PP or both. --Pete (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from I am just bemused by the fact that anybody could actually call this a "landslide" despite the media's observation of the expected "landslide" which did not occur. I would hope the purpose of this site is to maintain some kind of integrity in actually using terminology such as this. I also realise that this is not a forum to discusss personal opinion. On the weight of it however Abbott did not get by definition "an overwhelming majority of votes" it just happened to be the case that we were in an unusual situation where a 3.6% swing could deliver so many seats and I think this is something that should instead be made note of. I'd do it myself, but I can't be bothered dealing with the usual editing wars that result in editing anything in general on wikipedia no matter how much evidence you put forward --60.228.76.127 (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced does not mean it HAS to be included. At the end of the day, encyclopaedia editors are allowed some judgement. In my opinion, regardless of whether it was or wasn't a landslide, its inclusion on his bio page is leaning towards editorialism. Possibly more appropriate to include commentary on the election page such as "some commentators described it as a "landslide". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards including election jargon like this where appropriate. The question in my mind is whether it is appropriate here. Landslide election wins are generally those with a greater than ordinary swing or flow of seats. We don't label every change of government a landslide result, for example. --Pete (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case, this wasn't a greater than usual swing for a change of government in a Federal election. Changes of government in Australia tend to be decisive. Assuming that this swing was 3.6%, both the 2007 and 1998 elections had a notably larger swing, and you don't get a smaller swing with a change of Government (given that '83 was about the same) until '72. In terms of changes in number of seats, only '72 had fewer for a change of government. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
And in 1972, the HoR was smaller, meaning each seat counted for more. --Pete (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the term "Abbottlanche" :-)I don't remember the news coverage calling the win a landslide victory. The absolute number of seats won by the Coalition was quite high, but because the result in 2010 was so close, the number of seats changing hands was not as high as would otherwise be the case. Ultimately, a "landslide" win is a subjective term, and we should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ie. not describe the win as a landslide ourselves, but quote who did call it that. I support the removal of the term in the lede. --Surturz (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't so much the fact that the news called it a landslide, it was that news, particularly News Limited's News Poll were declaring that it would be a landslide, particularly in some of the more right leaning papers such as the Daily Telegraph, and the Courier Mail. The reality was that no such "landslide" occurred. Granted a lot of seats changed hands, but this was going to occur no matter which party was elected due to the nature of the 2010 election and the fact that the election was starting from a 50/50 position. --60.228.76.127 (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

PM not MP

Tony Abbott is list a MP. He is, at this current point of time, the PM of Australia. Ninjamainlymate (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

He is a Member of Parliament, who holds the office of Prime Minister. Still an MP. —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Correct. There is no postnominal associated with Prime Minister per se.
BTW, Abbott persists in using the postnominal MHR on his signage, letterhead, website etc. He of all people, now having porftfolio responsibility for protocol, honours and awards etc, should know this is incorrect. It's one thing to refer to oneself or others as "an MHR", being short for "a Member of the House of Representatives", but the only correct postnom for an MHR is MP. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2013

Please remove people from London because he is still Australian 121.218.200.239 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

He was born in London so he is from London. WWGB (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with including an unreferenced newspaper article that purports to the PM saving a child at sea, and from a burning building. There is no credible way to discern this as fact or creative historical engineering. A newspaper article written by a very one sided biographer hardly adds credibility to your site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodyfwall (talk • contribs) 03:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony Abbott is an immigrant from the UK, he came to Australia as 10£ Pom, this makes it even more bemusing about his position on boat people when Abbott himself came on a boat to this country, of course, this isn't the place for such discussion so I'll leave it at that other than to say that Abbott being an immigrant is correct --121.222.185.46 (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

2013 bushfire volunteer

The section on Community Service reports that Abbott served as a volunteer on the 2013 bushfires. I added sources that two noted commentators questioned whether the PM should participate in such activities. One editor removed that. There should either be balance in the reporting, or no mention of the activity. Otherwise it just stands as Putinesque media pandering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 November 2013

"He said/she said" style reporting does not necessarily benefit the encyclopaedia. Has he really copped that much flak for it? Is it an ongoing and notable controversy? Have any decisions about appropriate conduct for PMs resulted from it? I don't think so, therefore I don't think it's particularly notable. I would however trim the detail from the main sentence ("14 hours until 4am" or something) - this is pretty standard fare for the CFA; including it sounds a bit like an attempt at the aforementioned Putinesque heroism.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Wake me up when a prominent politician is not criticized for doing something. Lowest-common-denominator TV shows like to "balance" reports so no viewers will be upset, but an encyclopedic article should not record gossip until it is significant. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Then nor should it report a politician lighting backburn fires, not fighting fires, until it is significant. I really don't care if this 2013 matter stays or goes, just that it should be balanced if it stays. It's also quite laughable that the opinion of a noted political commentator like Laurie Oakes is considered "gossip". WWGB (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed WWGB's contrib because he/she still has not addressed the fact that it uses WP:WEASEL words. --Surturz (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Rather than have the 2013 fires in their own sentence, perhaps mention it as an aside to his long-term involvement in the brigade? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
That sounds more sensible. Previous wordings were IMO non-neutral, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM. There were over 1,000 fire-fighters involved, and we don't write a line about each of them. What makes this incident potentially notable for inclusion is not a person's involvement, but Abbott's decision to get involved on ground, rather than as PM. However, precisely that aspect has attracted broad criticism in the media ([10], [11], [12]). IMO the whole story is not relevant, but agree with WWGB that if there should be consensus to include this news item it has to be NPOV. --ELEKHHT 10:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I still can't edit and I want to add the category Abbott Government 101.174.201.70 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

MA in Philosophy from Oxford

the wiki pages states that Mr Abbott received a Master of Philosophy from Oxford however today his transcripts were released which stated that he received a bachelors degree. [3] goldy1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.goldsmith.1970 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have since found the original of the transcript rather than the new paper entry and find that my question was resolved by the full version. please disregard. goldy1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.goldsmith.1970 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Abbott's speeches being air-brushed from history

How about a reference to "Tony Abbott's controversial speeches wiped" The SMH articles states in part Some of Prime Minister Tony Abbott's most controversial speeches have been brushed from Coalition history since the election, including a 2009 speech backing a carbon tax, and a 2004 speech in which he describes abortion as a question of the mother's convenience. During Mr Abbott's 2009 carbon tax speech, in which he described himself as a climate change realist, he said he doubted climate change was man-made, saying we can't conclusively say man-made carbon dioxide emissions contributed to climate change. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-controversial-speeches-wiped-20131130-2yiez.html#ixzz2mBl5138Z

The media are greatly overstating this - as far as I can tell, all that has happened is that tonyabbott.com.au was redirected to liberal.org.au in what I assume was a plan to reduce duplication and consolidate the sites. The material continues to exist in internet archives and the parliamentary library, and the whole thing happened over three months ago. - Bilby (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
So the material was removed to be only accessable in internet archives and the parliamentary library...? Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The old website as a whole was taken down and redirected to liberals.org.au. Thus the content of the old website is now only available from internet archives or alternative sources. However, depicting this as "air brushing speeches from history" seems to be over the top. - Bilby (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The Libs don't control archives :P Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2014

Please add a section "5.5 Controversy" because Tony Abbott has made many controversial claims and these need to be included for a more well-rounded view of Tony Abbott. He certainly is a very controversial PM, even if people agree with him this fact cannot be ignored. This article is dishonest if it doesn't included some of his critism.

Otherwise, please include at least one of his controversial quotes on each of the politicial issues detailed in 5.1 to 5.4. For a source just see wikiquote: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott Or see: http://theagevsheraldsun.tumblr.com/post/33224765845/16-quotes-from-tony-abbott-to-remind-you-why-he or any other website.

Cgregoric (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: This request is going to need a few things to happen.
  • First, INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES, and what you have doesn't cut it.
  • Next, CONSENSUS because adding a "Controversy" section to the article will be controversial.
  • Then, you will need a clear cut, "please change X to Y" in the form of "please add <pre>This wikitext</pre> to a new subsection 5.5"

Once all of these requirements are met, I'm fairly certain your requested text can be added fairly quickly. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that stand-alone "Controversy" sections are discouraged as they tend to act as trollbait. Best to integrate notable quotes into the relevant section, such as Abbott's "national tragedy" quote being included in the "bioethics and family policy" section. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Australian parents?

This article contradicts itself. It says Abbott had "Australian parents" then later says his father was English. The first statement is incorrect & cotradicted by the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.101.27 (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Change to "Prime Ministership" section

The words "which received strong public support" should be removed from the 2nd paragraph. I don't believe it is true, in fact there has been quite a backlash. Also, perhaps a paragraph related to "Illegal Maritime Arrivals" because many people believe it is not illegal to arrive by boat when seeking asylum (See Refugee Convention)

Thanks,

Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.60.50 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Views on homosexuality

I've deleted a para, based on an old Guardian article, which made a number of claims which were simply not supported by the source. Now, I'm not saying that Abbott's views on homosexuals haven't been a story, I just don't think we should claim things which are unsourced. If we are going to say he has been heavily criticised, then we need more people than Anthony Albanese and a couple of journalists doing the criticising. And if we are going to say his attitude is based on his religion, then we need to find a source saying precisely that. A source with good authority, not just some random Wikipedia editor guessing that he knows what makes Abbott tick.--Pete (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Another broken promise

See here. Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased Article

Regardless of political inclination I think most people can agree that Tony Abbott's time in government has been controversial if nothing else. This article silly ignores many of his more controversial policies and statements and presents a very one-sided view. Where is the reference to the March in March protests? He is the only prime minister in living memory to have inspired such protests. Where is the reference to his shark culls, the declassification of heritage listed forests, the dredging of the Great Barrier Reef, the attempt to wrest control of popular media. Where are his numerous infamous quotes about woman's rights, human rights in regards to asylum seekers, the environment, homosexual marriage. To say that he won the 2013 election in a landslide is not just a gross exaggeration but completely untrue. Pick up your game Wikipedia, you're supossed to offer neutral information, not sterilised propaganda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.167.2 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you can find good quotes - from reliable sources, and we're probably talking ABC news articles as an accepted standard, rather than political blogs - then we can use this sort of material. But wild-eyed claims with no basis - such as "dredging the Great Barrier Reef" - are not going to be included. We need factual, well-sourced material, not political propaganda from one side or the other. --Pete (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Labor stopped the boats, not the Liberals

What a striking graph! Timeshift (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That is a true statement. Labor Policy was changed prior to the election in 2013 and boat numbers dropped dramatically and continued to drop, however the Liberals claimed all credit (politicians are funny like that). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.60.50 (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Rudd implemented the policy that led to a steep decline. Just as Howard did the same a decade earlier. The numbers tell the story. Is there anywhere in our article that is misleading? --Pete (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

BA/MA

There seems to be a bit of a barney going on, leading to conflicting stories. Can we sort out - here - what the situation is so that we can use some accurate and elegant wording? --Pete (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The facts are very clear. Abbott qualified for a BA in 1983.[13] Then after four years he was able to apply for a MA with no extra work.[14] WWGB (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The first source we can use. The second is synthesis. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Is primary school synthesis like calculus. We know that (1) he graduated with a BA; (2) Oxford BA's are converted into MA's; (3) now he holds an MA [15]. (1)+(2)=(3). --ELEKHHT 03:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course. However, we need a source that says this explicitly. See WP:SYNTH for the full wikilogic. --Pete (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if one finds an explicit source than that is better than what we have now. But otherwise the full wikilogic is at WP:FIVEPILLARS saying that "policies and guidelines [...] their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording [...] and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception." So I see no point to remove what we have now unless there is a reasonable ground to presume that '1+2=3' can be incorrect. --ELEKHHT 08:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
We can't say that a national leader holds an academic degree based on a chain of logic. We need an explicit source. Apart from the subject's notability, this is also a WP:BLP, and we cannot guess about things we state as fact. As for the spirit meaning more than the letter, precisely what kind of distinction between the two did you find in WP:SYNTH? The spirit of the policy is in complete accordance with the text:Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources; we cannot use a chain of logic to claim something that is not stated explicitly. --Pete (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Presuming that the desired source is for stating that he has an MA, we can always use https://www.pm.gov.au/your-pm or http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-01/the-facts-of-tonys-life/1164632. - Bilby (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
There's no problem with sourcing for the MA. WWGB makes the point that it was a BA, automatically upgraded to an MA, and I think that's worth stating. But it's got to be sourced explicitly, rather than synthesised, especially if one source doesn't mention TA at all. --Pete (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the synthesis and changed the article wording to "he gained a Master of Arts (MA)". This is accurate, as sourced by the ABC item mentioned above, but if someone can come up with a source that explicitly states the full story of Abbott's Oxford MA, that would be fine. --Pete (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The facts are pretty clear. TA graduated with a BA from Oxford. He now holds the degree of MA from Oxford. Apparently this is the result of an upgrade with no further academic work required. But if we don't have a reliable source saying precisely that, all we can do is report sourced facts. There's no "apparently", no "maybe", no guessing in a BLP. We need clear sources. Anything that requires the reader to connect the dots by themselves is synthesis. --Pete (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Choosing a vague, less informative, and potentially misleading wording is not improving Wikipedia. We have the facts and we should present them. In my understanding the 'no original research' policy doesn't mean we have to pretend to be brainless. See also Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. --ELEKHHT 04:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a WP:BLP matter. If we don't have a source, we cannot claim something, nor imply it. I'm open to better wording, so long as our statements are sourced. Go find a source that states how Tony Abbott got his MA. Don't leave the reader to guess. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You removed four times the sourced information about TA graduating with a BA in 1983 [16] [17]. Also ignored common sense arguments above, provided misleading edit summaries and breached WP:3RR. Will leave it to others to handle. --ELEKHHT 06:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I see it differently. I see you repeatedly inserting unsourced material into a BLP. WWGB has now provided a wording that doesn't rely on synthesis and sticks to the facts as we know them. --Pete (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This claim that I would have 'inserted unsourced material' is false and offensive. Let me summarize all this in a simple way: the statements (1) TA graduated with BA@O in 1983; (2) BA@O after four years can be converted into a MA; (3) TA now holds a MA; were all sourced and correct. Stating '(1)+(2)=(3)' was opposed on ground of OR even is elementary logic and there is no case against it. Stating '(1)...(2)=(3)' was opposed because that required the reader to fill in the gap, so you chose to edit-war and remove references to (1) and (2), even though sourced and relevant. Later you claimed that (2) is "unsourced" because it doesn't mention TA. This is incorrect as (2) is sourced and applies to all BA@O, including TA. Now after WWGB added the year when (3) occurred, you suggest the issue is solved. That is incorrect, since what we have now is '(1)...(3)', with '+(2)=' removed, and the reader is left in dark as to how (1) in 1983 lead to (3) in 1989. We have the sourced and relevant explanation that should be added to the article. --ELEKHHT 08:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree on the last point, as per my comments above. Your point (2) is okay so far as it goes, but we had no confirmation that this is what happened in TA's case; that was left as an exercise for the reader and that was why I said your edit was unsourced. I'm sorry if you thought it uncivil, that was not my intention, just a statement of fact. We don't put forward a series of facts and invite the reader to join the dots, we find a reliable source that makes the statement. I'm not entirely happee with the Junkee.com source, but it correlates with a Facebook page referenced by the SMH, and those two sources are enough for me to accept that the academic record is in fact that of Tony Abbott; it shows a BA awarded in 1983 and MA in 1989. I haven't seen any response to the SMH article, especially there has been no response from the PM, to the effect that the transcript is false or inaccurate, so I think we can accept it, and our article is now sourced. As you suggest, filling in the explanation of the customary "upgrade" of an Oxford BA to an MA is now the final part of the story, and we may safely add that, even though it does not mention Tony Abbott specifically. We can polish up the wording a bit, but I see no major problems there. Many thanks to WWGB for coming up with the missing link - the only copy of TA's academic transcript I'd previously seen stopped one line short of the MA award. Nice bit of detective work there. It would help if there were discussion, maybe an appeal to the BLP or RS noticeboards before edit-warring over inserting material into a BLP when it has been labelled as OR; one's own personal opinion may or may not be backed up when tested, but if there is doubtful material in a BLP, then it is far better to leave it out until there is no question about its reliability. That goes for any BLP, and it has been policy for several years now. --Pete (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the more cooperative tone. Still, your position sounds to me like stating that 'even though we know that everyone can vote when aged 18, since we don't have a source to explicitly state that TA could vote since he was 18, we can't say that TA could vote after he reached the age of 18'. IMO the source for (2) i.e. 'Oxford BAs can be converted after minimum four years into a MA' is sufficient to explain why the BA he received in 1983 became a MA in 1989, particularly as we also also know that all his studies were at BA level. You seem to be contesting this ad absurdum, rather than for a plausible counter-rationale. --ELEKHHT 13:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. I disagree with it. Big deal. Let's stick with wikipolicy instead of opinion, hey? Cheers. --Pete (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I will stick with trying to improve Wikipedia. You can stick to your narrowly framed interpretations of wiki-bureaucracy. No biggie.--ELEKHHT 14:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm carrying no torch here for Tony Abbott, but he is an actual living person, like you and I. I've seen the effect a Wikipedia biographical article can have on people notable enough to be the subject of one, and how difficult it can be for them to correct errors. Malicious or defamatory untruths, sometimes. You could go and read through WP:BLP, see why and how this policy operates, see how it affects real people, see why it is important that we tread carefully and why we don't shouldn't insert material that is dubious. There is usually no urgent need to insert material; we can discuss it on the talk page first, maybe go to the noticeboards for a more considered opinion. But it is important that we remove dubious material swiftly. There is a notice on this very page making the point: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page… Our BLP policy is important because Wikipedia is more than a game or a compendium of facts about uncaring objects like Venus or Milo. It can affect real people.
Politics can bring out the worst in editors. They try to boost the heroes of the team they follow, belittle or demean the champions of the other side. This is one instance, and this little detail of Tony Abbott's life is not the first time somebody has tried to imply that although Abbott's official biography shows that he holds an MA from Oxford, he is somehow incorrectly claiming this, because he "only" graduated with a BA. I have seen copies of his transcript published that stop short of the key line showing that he was awarded the degree of MA six years later. Incidentally, that is another reason why we cannot rely on the Telegraph article and the chain of logic you favour, because it gives a four year period for the Oxford "upgrade". We would be directing our readers to an erroneous conclusion. If you see that as improving Wikipedia, fine. My interpretation differs. For living people, and especially for living people whose articles carry a string of warnings at the top of the talk page, such as this one, we should be scrupulous in heeding those warnings and treading carefully. But it is something we should follow in every case, for every living person whose biographical article we publish. Let people here rise or fall by their deeds, not by the myths promoted by their fans, or the lies spread by their enemies. --Pete (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree with most of what you say, but none proposed adding other info than sourced and relevant one and you seem to disregard the risk of bias by omission. The claim that the Telegraph source would not be consistent with the other facts is erroneous, as six years is consistent with 'minimum four'. Anyway, I think a link to Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin) will help the readers. This explains that Oxford BA to MA conversion eligibility is seven years from matriculation, that is 1981+7=1988. Again, one has to apply for it, so is a minimum. --ELEKHHT 23:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the link. I think a firm grip on logic is needed in order to argue it credibly. Sure, six years is bigger than four, but asking a reader to get the correct date - and thus the full story - from "minimum four" is a carpshoot. Nor were we doing anything more than implying that this is what happened in Abbott's case. We still don't have a source to that effect, now that I look at it. I think I'd be a bit precious if I reverted you here, but if you were a dedicated follower of logic, you'd grasp the point and self-revert. :) --Pete (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section needed?

It seems very odd that arguably one of the most controversial prime ministers in Australian history doesn't have a section about that. I'd edit it in myself, but I'm pretty new to this. If I leave a whole lot of article links here, can someone else tackle it?

"Winkgate": http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-22/sex-line-grandmother-says-pms-reaction-sleazy/5469488 http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2014-05-21/grandmother-forced-to-work-on-phone-sex-line-challenges-pm-tony-abbott-over-budget-cuts/1314444 http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/tony-abbott-caught-on-camera-winking-and-smiling-when-confronted-over-budget-by-sex-line-worker/story-e6frfmcr-1226925020644

Terrible reactions to budget, accusations of lies pre-election: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/poll-plunge-as-abbott-embarks-on-budget-sales-mission/1313294 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/pm-tony-abbott-on-the-budget/5461190 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/fact-file-what-tony-abbott-promised-on-tax/5420226

Daughter's $60,000 scholarship to Whitehouse Institute of Design: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-23/tony-abbott-defends-daughter-frances-design-scholarship/5473798 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/former-classmates-angry-scholarship-abbotts-daughter?CMP=soc_567 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/frances-abbott-courted-scholarship-new-matilda http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/liberal-donor-frances-abbott-degree-scholarship-tony-abbott-daughter http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-says-he-was-not-lobbied-on-government-grants-by-head-of-institute-that-gave-daughter-a-scholarship-20140523-38t42.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-friend-linked-to-60000-scholarship-for-frances-abbott-at-private-college-20140521-38olh.html

Asylum Seekers still arriving, but not being reported by government. Reports of abuse. Also, spying on Indonesia (possibly more an issue for Julie Bishop, but possibly still relevant): http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-policy-a-failure-as-boats-keep-coming-says-indonesian-foreign-minister-marty-natalegawa-20140506-zr5q7.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/asylum-boat-turnback-three-extra-passengers-put-on-board http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/06/no-agreement-with-indonesia-to-stop-spying-says-tony-abbott http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/18/indonesian-president-betrayed-tony-abbott-spying http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/world/asia/indonesia-takes-aim-at-australia-over-spying-but-not-the-us.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26062891 http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/25/immigration-minister-rejects-new-claims-asylum-seeker-abuse http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/unhcr-asylum-seeker-abuse-claims/5218496 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-05/bishop-wants-abc-apology-over-asylum-seeker-stories/5238788

Reza Berati's death (again, not directly related to Abbott so not sure of relevance): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Berati http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-04/manus-island-asylum-seekers-witness-statements-reza-berati-death/5367118 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-30/manus-island-reza-berati-witness-protection-application/5421892 http://www.smh.com.au/national/manus-island-reza-berati-was-struck-fell-from-stairs-and-was-hit-over-head-till-he-died-say-inmates-20140321-358qb.html

Protests in March and May (more to come in August, I think) and Tony Abbott's unpopularity gaining international attention: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/22/how-australias-winking-tony-abbott-became-one-of-the-worlds-most-unpopular-prime-ministers/ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-16/protesters-march-in-march-across-australia-against-govt-policies/5324048 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/18/tens-of-thousands-across-the-country-march-in-in-protest http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/thousands-of-students-protest-in-sydney-cbd-20140521-38oib.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-21/university-students-rally-against-budget-measures/5467044

"Died of Shame" controversy (link to the other Wikipedia page, perhaps?): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Jones_%22died_of_shame%22_controversy http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/died-of-shame-focus-on-abbotts-use-of-controversial-phrase-20121010-27cgd.html http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-says-prime-minister-julia-gillard-should-accept-fair-criticism/story-fndo4eg9-1226492838613

"Stop Tony Meow": http://www.smh.com.au/national/manus-island-reza-berati-was-struck-fell-from-stairs-and-was-hit-over-head-till-he-died-say-inmates-20140321-358qb.html http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/06/stop-tony-meow-new-online-app-replaces-pictures-pm-cats http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/29/if-you-never-want-to-see-some-pols-face-on-the-web-again-heres-a-catty-suggestion-from-australia/

That's all the ones I can think of for now. Seeyoshirun (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't include "Earwaxfest" on Kevin Rudd's page, and that was a massive international story. The mix of opinion and trivia listed above doesn't seem encyclopaedic. We look to present a Neutral Point of View and these sort of "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections rarely survive review and discussion. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for political debate, but you seem well-suited to other forums. Speakers Corner in the Domain, perhaps? --Pete (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Or you could just refer to WP:Controversy sections? :) Seeyoshirun - feel free to weave the refs in to suitable body content within the article, but we can't just have an indiscriminate list of "controversies". Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Prime Minister for Women

Since Mr Abbott has made such a point of nominating himself for this title, and retaining it in the face of 'winkgate' (!) is there a reason it's not mentioned among his titles here, or on the Minister for Women (Australia) page?

Has he resigned from the post? Ref: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=EZ5 Maybe that's interesting.

In fact, the only official reference I can find to the title is here on a pdf list of titles: https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/03%20Senators%20and%20Members/32%20Members/Lists/minlist.ashx - in the context of Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash being the minister assisting the Prime Minister for Women.

It's as though Google has been washed. Here's another in The Guardian - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/tony-abbott-womens-minister-portfolio. Roy Scherer (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If there are no good sources, we can't use it. The APH reference uses the "Minister assisting the Prime Minister" formula, as per the "Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service" title held by Abetz in the line immediately above. I haven't checked the Guardian reference, but there's no point; if the major metropolitan dailies and the ABC aren't using the term, then you might as well shitcan it, as per WP:NPOV --Pete (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
On looking at The Guardian, they don't use the term either - the references are to Cash, not Abbott. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014

Tony Abbott remains one of australias most controversial ever politicians, he has been caught lieing about numerous preelection promises and his public approval is falling. http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-tony-abbott-faces-harsh-backlash-over-controversial-deficit-levy/story-fncynjr2-1226900848150 Jeside (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This has come to our attention and will be handled appropriately here. --Pete (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 13:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Obvious NPOV issues, but is all developing quickly and will be fixed eventually. It is notable that Abbott's announced budget broke election promises at an unprecedented level, there is no shortage of sources for that ([18], [19], [20], [21], etc.) , and even an eloquent song. --ELEKHHT 14:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Frances Abbott, Queen of the Whitehouse

At Whitehouse Institute of Design half the article is now devoted to Tony Abbott. This is looking like a POV fork to me, seeing as we're not mentioning the story here. Could I get a few more eyes on this, please? --Pete (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently an undue weight issue at the Whitehouse article, but it does warrant mention somewhere (this article being the obvious place for most of it), and calling the Whitehouse article a "POV fork" is crap. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
If we cover a story in one place and not another - and as you say, here is the obvious place for it - then it's a POV fork. Using Whitehouse Institute of Design to launch an attack on Tony Abbott that you aren't bold enough to include here, looks pretty dubious to me. I've deleted the section there - most of a very short article on an educational institution devoted to one sudent, come on! - and request that it not be reinserted until we get some sort of consensus here. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You don't make controversial edits you know aren't supported, deleting a swathe of well-sourced topical information, and then demand that they stay out. Rather, if you want to make those edits, you get a consensus. I don't know why you're talking about the Whitehouse article as if I wrote the section (I hadn't even touched it until I saw in my watchlist that you were ripping out reliable sources under misleading rationales). As I've said numerous times, the current state of the Whitehouse article clearly results in undue weight on the issue, and it absolutely warrants mentioning here. It's not difficult - nor in any way controversial - to cut down the content on one article and add some to another where it also warrants mention, but it seems like you're getting a kick out of breaking Wikipedia policy for shits and giggles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting a kick out of watching you run around in circles, which is very naughty of me. Why not see what other editors have to say? Cheers? --Pete (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not that I'm surprised that you'd admit to deleting reliable sources and blocking constructive progress for fun, but it's good to see you at least admit it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Things that are going to be controversial in this area:

  • deleting reliably-sourced information under misleading rationales; daily newspapers and decade-old new media institutions alike become "blogs" when they don't support your agenda
  • deleting the issue from the Whitehouse article entirely

Things that are not going to be controversial:

  • anything much else

It's telling that you keep doing the first two. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Huffington Post is a blog, but it's a well-respected one. I wouldn't call The Age or The Guardian a blog. Other sources, well we have WP:RSN for that. --Pete (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You called a daily newspaper of 150 years a blog when you were trying to get the content that it was cited in out of an article. I take your claims about other respected media outlets about as seriously. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Looked like a blogsite to me. Some rural weekly, was it? --Pete (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
No, the 147-year old daily newspaper The Courier. You're a little bit old for a hair-pulling stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
If people want to add material about the Whitehouse scholarship to this page, that is up to them. If you think it should be covered on this page you add it. To call it a fork of this page when all the material on the Whitehouse page is directly relevant to Whitehouse is plain rubbish. People pushing that line would rather it not be anywhere when it well referenced material. Alans1977 (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
There's no way this merits a whole paragraph or a level-two section header. I'm marginally in favour of including it somewhere, but just chucking it randomly into the article is bad editing. IgnorantArmies 15:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to ditch it entirely. The insertion was POINTy, the story doesn't seem to have any lasting impact, nobody has done anything illegal or against the rules, it isn't directly relevant to TA. If there were a pattern of similar behaviour - Abbott's family being showered with favours, use of Commonwealth car to ferry school staff to red carpet events, RAAF airstrikes on netball competitors and so on - then maybe. The standard here is Kevin Rudd's earwax diet. Directly relevant, huge international story with massive video coverage, but do we mention it? --Pete (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder about your continued obsession with bringing up Rudd's earwax at every opportunity. Was there a potential conflict of interest between Rudd and his earwax? Rudd's earwax is meaningless trivia with no implications/consequences. Move on. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Like Malcolm Fraser's Memphis trousers, some things are just little gems, little random details in the big picture, the sort of sweet moments that bring colour and interest to politics for the common guy. But, as you say, meaningless. I think this scholarship thing is more of the same. Of course, some things, like Whitlam's steak or Turnbull's ute, can turn into big things. Or a bottle of Grange. If we had some solid evidence of a tit for tat, this could be a big thing. But it would have to be on the front pages to be worth including. Besides, Abbott was OL at the time. He wasn't in a position to grant favours. It's just speculation. Conspiracy theory stuff. --Pete (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You think being OL means you can't give/receive favours with a future expectation? Come now. Keep telling yourself that. But regardless, the Whitehouse issue is claimed to be about a personal favour, not a favour in exchange for a parliamentary action. The fact you want to compare this, to Rudd's meaningless earwax, speaks volumes Pete. Like Rodney Clavell, it's not too late to back down. Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I just don't see it as that big a story. The statements we have are that the scholarship was awarded on academic merit, and there was no lobbying. That may or may not be true, but we don't have anything to say otherwise apart from speculation and synthesis. Unless we can find something concrete, it belongs with the giggles and the winks and the earwax. --Pete (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Substantiated/unsubstantiated allegations above is completely different to meaningless earwax. I'm not sure why you don't understand this. Timeshift (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we doing this New Matilda/Independent Australia not being reliable sources/being blogs bs again?Alans1977 (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Guardian and news.com.au refs

Has anyone noticed that the refs from The Guardian and news.com.au seem to quote each other. It's like a joint effort. Isn't that a bit weird? --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed one. We don't need two. --Pete (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Register of Members’ Interests

So what is objectionable about 'The scholarship was not disclosed by Abbott in the parliamentary Register of Members’ Interests.' It's debatable whether a disclosure was needed or not and that sentence doesn't say that one was. The Register of Members' Interests as you sorely know covers broader areas than just gifts. While we're at it, why did you chose to delete The Guardian ref and not the news.com.au ref? Alans1977 (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Second point first. If, as indicated above, both sources have the same material, then it makes sense to retain the one more widely accepted in Australia,
It is not debatable whether disclosure was needed. "Under the Statement of Registrable Interests, a scholarship is not a gift, it is an award based on merit and disclosure is not required."[22] Saying that TA made no disclosure may be correct and reliably sourced, but it implies that the scholarship was something that he should have declared and erred in not doing so, especially if we do not include the information that there was no requirement for disclosure. Our readers cannot be expected to know the exact disclosure requirements of the Register of Members' Interests.
The facts we have are that Frances Abbott received the award on academic merit, a direct choice of Leanne Whitehouse who occasionally awards scholarships which are not able to be applied for. It did not need to be disclosed. There was no wrongdoing on anybody's part, and the only notable part of the story relating to Tony Abbott is that he has a clever daughter. Now, there may well be more to the story than this, but as we don't have any checkable facts on this, and attempting to fill the gap by speculation, synthesis and gossip has no place in a WP:BLP. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It is plainly obvious that the Register of Members' Interests covers broader areas than gifts alone and at the time of the awarding of the scholarship Frances Abbott was a dependent of Tony Abbott. Alans1977 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither assertion is contested. However, scholarships awarded on merit are not required to be declared, as per above. Please do not continue to reinsert contentious material without gaining consensus here. --Pete (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The fact that the scholarship was not advertised and when other students asked about scholarships they were specifically told that there were no scholarships for their program of study goes against your assertion that the scholarship was awarded on merit. Further Tony Abbott benefited materially by the awarding of the scholarship by not having to pay for the full cost of the course of study (given that Frances Abbott was his dependent at the time). Alans1977 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The scholarship was the rarely-awarded "Chairman's Scholarship". Only two awards in the history of the institute. Of course it wasn't part of any regular program. Regardless of what you or I think, the only direct sources we have say that it was awarded on academic merit - anything else is supposition. And whether or not Abbott benefited from the award to his daughter, the fact is that it did not need to be disclosed on the Register of Member's Interests. Very likely you and I are in agreement as to the true nature of this scholarship, but the nature of Wikipedia is that we can't just substitute opinion for facts, and the facts we have indicate that nothing untoward occurred. I might also add that WP:BLP applies here, and if you keep on inserting contentious material that indicates a conclusion unsupported by the facts, I'm going to delete it every time. --Pete (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Leader of the House

Seeing as "no one give a flying f*** what I think", according to Pdfpdf, maybe I should raise the issue here first. I think it is better to add "Leader of the House" to the infobox, rather than have "10th Chairperson-in-office of the Commonwealth of Nations". Abbott was Leader of the House, an important role in the House of Representatives, for just over 6 years, where as he was only Chairperson-in-Office for 2 months, so he did not do anything of importance whilst in office. I think it is better to add an office he held for 6 years, that has more to do with his time in Australian Politics rather than an office he held for 2 months that he didn't really do anything important in. Andreas11213 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My god! The leopard is giving an imitation of attempting to acknowledge that he needs to change his spots!! Well, I can only say: "Not before time." Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No one understands your 50 year old sayings. Rather than trying to be cool and be a smart ass, why don't you actually address the point I have made, something you often fail to do, which means you have no valid argument against what I have said... Andreas11213 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
ROTFL!!
User:Andreas11213:
a) Which bit of "Isn't it obvious that nobody gives a flying F*** what you think? We're only interested in facts backed by reliable refere"ces is unclear to you? I'm happy to answer any requests for clarification.
b) No one understands your 50 year old sayings. i) Well, it's pretty obvious that you understand it. ii) So what? (As usual, your comment/statement/observation/question/whatever is totally irrelevant, and is a half-arsed (ineffective) pseudo-attempted insult. (i.e. Bad luck Sunshine - it didn't work.)
c) why don't you actually address the point I have made, - Because you are too arrogant and too self opinionated to realise that there are bigger issues than the current minutia, and it is the bigger issues that are important.
Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
User:IgnorantArmies With the greatest respect, my comments have nothing to do with the edit. (Or you.) They are ALL about Andreas's unacceptable behavior - I have NO opinion, positive or negative, about the edit; on-the-other-hand, I have VERY strong opinions about Andreas's unacceptable behavior, of which there is a short but incredibly active history, and I am more than happy to provide you with a briefing if you wish. In good faith, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that – I've got a lot of Auspol articles on my watchlist, so I know most of the story. You probably could've picked a better edit to blow up on, though – I'm sure one would've come up eventually. Try not to get too caught up in it all, IgnorantArmies 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured that - Well, in my (no doubt biased) opinion, you were right.
You probably could've picked a better edit to blow up on, though ... - On the one hand, fair comment. On another hand, this IS (was) "the next edit". (Glad to read the reply of someone who can see further away than his own naval.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that edit was perfectly reasonable (and I certainly don't think it warranted that reaction). Leader of the Opposition (not Leader of the House, which is quite different) House is an important position, and should definitely be included in the infobox. Commonwealth Chairperson-in-office could be included, but, like you said, Abbott was only chairperson for two months and did not preside over a CHOGM, and the position is ex officio – barely warrants one sentence in the article, let alone the infobox. (However, it doesn't need to be one or the other. Either way, Leader of the House should be included). IgnorantArmies 13:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait so do you think Leader of the House should be included or not? IgnorantArmies Andreas11213 (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops, didn't read your edit properly (thought you were including Leader of the Opposition for some reason). But yeah, Leader of the House should definitely be in the infobox, basically for all the same reasons. IgnorantArmies 13:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have some consistency? Looking at the list, some have it included, some don't. Albo doesn't, and he excelled at the job. --Pete (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Well then I will add it in Abbott and Albo's page Andreas11213 (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"During his career as a minister, Abbott acquired a reputation as a robust parliamentary debater and political tactician.[67][68]"

I'm concerned that the above statement displays bias, as there is hardly anything in the sources provided to justify it. Source 67 doesn't mention this at all apart from 'Today, he's often described as the government's head-kicker. He is an aggressive and competitive politician.' And this is just a quote from an ABC reporter. Source 68 mentions 'head-kicker' a few times but apart from that the only reference is in a quote from the Catholic Health Australia chief executive officer Francis Sullivan, saying "You are not going to die wondering what Tony Abbott thinks . . . and that is going to help the community debate," he said. " . . . he will take your view on and debate it. He won't just dismiss it." I hardly think the above constitutes a 'reputation'. If you must, 'robust debater' is maybe borderline appropriate (if we take 'robust' to mean 'aggressive') but 'political tactician' is unjustified. I think given the above sources, 'aggressive parliamentary debater' (fullstop) would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.91.232 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be correct as to those sources, but have you read the David Marr piece in Quadrant? --Pete (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Quadrant - a Freudian slip? In any case the IP's argument is sound. "Aggressive" seems to be the word most fit BBC, The Monthly, Essential poll, etc. --ELEKHHT 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Quadrant, Quarterly, quasi-Freudian. Yes, my mistake. Looking at your list of sources there, I have to wonder about that "most". What sort of reliable source is "EssentialVision.com.au"? My feeling is that "aggressive" is a loaded word, a bit of spin that a reputable encyclopaedia wouldn't use in this case. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Would be helpful if instead of just mentioning Marr, would tells us which part of his essay you find relevant. And if you find "aggressive" is not a good description of Abbott's debating style, tell us what would be better. Because the point that the IP made above is valid, and the current description is misleading. --ELEKHHT 22:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The statement as it stands displays POV. Removed. Alans1977 (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It's almost a direct quote from the SBS source. What, precisely, is the objection? By way of comparison, Anthony Albanese contains lengthier and more pungent descriptions of his parliamentary style. --Pete (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually that statement about 'robust debater and tactician' on this article preceded the SBS item. --ELEKHHT 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It might be a case of circular cites. I just plugged a couple of keywords into google and looked for a reliable source. Nevertheless, it is a succinct description of his style in Parliament, a reasonably accurate one rather than being partisan. Not sure what Alans1977's precise objection is. Unless we get some response that addresses wikipolicy rather than WP:I just don't like it I'm intending to restore it; there doesn't seem to be any NPOV vio. --Pete (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That Abbott is a 'robust debater and tactician' is merely an opinion. Doesn't matter if it's almost a direct quote, it's still just an opinion displaying a point of view.Alans1977 (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
"He gained a reputation" is a statement of fact. If you want to whack a footnote designating who holds said opinion, go right ahead, but it's not required for reliably sourced information.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I dispute that he has "gained a reputation". The article is quite simply wrong.Alans1977 (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What we have now in the article is unreliable cherrypicking. Neither of the previous two sources supported the statement in the article, and now we have a reference that was searched out to support the statement but post-dates it, thus being unreliable. The BBC ref I linked to above uses "aggressive" and was made about the same time (one month diff). If we need a summary statement about Abbott's reputation at the time, we need to consider all available reliable sources. --ELEKHHT 14:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Height and reach

How is his height and reach relevant to anything?Alans1977 (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a standard pair of statistics attributed to boxers. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not a page about a boxer. So please explain his height and reach in context of him being an Australian Prime-Minister.Alans1977 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
"This is not a page about a boxer. So please explain his height and reach in context of him being an Australian Prime-Minister." Sorry but what rubbish. Prime Ministers aren't just Prime Ministers, they didn't become born on the day of the swearing in. This is a biography of Tony Abbott and should be included. If it's a standard pair of statistics attributed to boxers (i'll take HiLo's word for it), and we have a reference for it, then I don't know what all the below kerfuffle is about. What's the problem? Timeshift (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo?

Surely a better photo could be added to this page? The current one almost has him in a half frown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.79.150 (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a very high quality free photo. Do you have a better high quality free photo? Timeshift (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It is an excellent photo, in image quality, likeness, and a certain merit of portraiture in that it adds an air of character. For a free image, it is exceptional. Looking at other recent PMs, Kevin Rudd's is insipid - didn't we used to have a much better one of him? - and Gillard's is superb. John Howard's is so-so. Good free images of senior politicians are very hard to come by. We can't use their official portraits lifted from websites for some reason, media photos are rarely released under a licence we can use, and the candid photos taken with iphones at various functions are generally of low quality. As ever, if anyone can come up with a better image under an appropriate license, put it up here for discussion, please. --Pete (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Caption Existing image Caption Andreas11213

I found myself reverting two PM images within a minute or so, for different reasons. This one was for image quality and composition reasons. The existing image is an excellent portrait, close up, beautifully lit with a good dynamic range on the face. My only quibble is that theres not a lot of "nose-space" on the left, but as used in the infobox, he's looking into the body of the article.

Andreas swapped this for a more recent image, which IMHO isn't as good. It's more of a half-length shot, there's a vast amount of empty space on the right and lower half of the image - most of the image is dead black or very dark - there's a distracting element, probably a picture frame near his face, and the lighting (my guess is a pop-up flash) sucks, making the face flat and emphasising the wrinkles. Maybe it could be worked on a bit in post, but overall it's a very mediocre portrait.

Both images link through to Flickr, with more information. Technically, the current image is from a better camera, full-frame as opposed to crop, shot with a bigger aperture and higher ISO, no flash and a nice lens. The other one, well, it's not bad, but my beefs are with the composition (a crop from a much larger image) and the flash.

I'd like to hear the opinions of others on this. --Pete (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have undone this edit. I agree with Pete's rationale for retaining the original image; and further note that the new image simply appears dry. —MelbourneStar☆talk 23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What you have said may be true, however the current photo is from 2010, whereas the one I am proposing is from 2012. I think it is better to use a more recent photo, and also in the one from 2012 he is smiling, so it looks better. We really need a new photo of him, the current one is way too close up, if you look at other world leaders, their infobox photos are taken a bit further away. Andreas11213 (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Does he look significantly different from 2010 to 2012? no. Other leaders... yes, Other leaders can have rainbows and stars in their articles - this article is about Tony Abbott not other leaders. Just because he is smiling, does not warrant a change. —MelbourneStar☆talk 23:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
No Andreas. The current one is basically perfect. Timeshift (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
What Andreas doesn't realize is that this image of John Howard used as the primary image in the John Howard article was taken in 2003. He is not smiling. Nor is he facing the camera. And it's up-close. Why is it there? because it's a good image. —MelbourneStar☆talk 23:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Touche! Timeshift (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that Tony Abbott is in the USA at the moment, there's every chance we can get a current image from US government sources - which are automatically released into the public domain. These can be a bit hit and miss, but if anybody sees a good shot, jump on it! --Pete (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, i've updated the links on my user page. But having said "jump on it", discuss any new found images here on talk before replacing this article's main image. Timeshift (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Of course. The current image is excellent and any new one would have to be extraordinary. Looking further at the current image, we are very lucky to have it. It was shot by a professional photographer who has produced some superb portraits (gallery here) and not only is this very good for image quality, it also captures something of the subject, which the second one doesn't, being more of a generic grinning head caught in a pop-up flash. Grins and smiles don't necessarily make for a good portrait. The best and most memorable photo of Winston Churchill is one where he looks very grumpy indeed! And we use it in our article. --Pete (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
option ...--Stemoc (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The photo seems less than professional in comparison. Still like the current one better. Timeshift (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Three new free USA photos, third image the best out of the three, but still not as good as the current photo we have. Though the third image would make a good fit for the article body. Timeshift (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And now there's a fourth but still nowhere near the quality of the current image. Timeshift (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the third one, suitably cropped to focus on the subject, or as is to illustrate the current trip and the ongoing alliance. But I still prefer what we have as a lead portrait. --Pete (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference numbering does not match up

The article has 200 reference numbers but there are only 153 references listed at the bottom of the article. The last number of each match up (discussing Centenary Medal from memory) so it seems likely that extra numbers have been added to the text when previous numbers could have been used. I checked some previous edits but I could not see where any mass changes to references were made so it may have been occurring slowly over time. Can this be checked and correct reference numbers added to the text? --Stefanzi (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - there was a square bracket instead of a curly bracket in reference 117. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The boxer

  1. TA won two Blues in boxing
  2. TA boxed as a heavyweight - this is relevant to 1.
  3. TA's short stature put him at a disadvantage in the heavyweight class - this is relevant to 2.
  4. TA's success - see point 1 - despite his disadvantage indicates the qualities relevant to his political career as noted by both sources. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It's relevant to his education that he won two blues. His stature and reach has what to do with that? Alans1977 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Your question is answered in the post to which you replied, which you appear not to have grasped. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
So you insult my intelligence when I ask what his height and reach has to do with his current position.Alans1977 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to put it that way. I'd rather phrase it as a simple request to read and comprehend the points made by myself and backed up by the sources we use. As to exactly why you don't want to do this, I'll leave that question amicably open. --Pete (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but the material in dispute was first added in November last year, and, as far as I can tell, its inclusion has not been challenged until now, making that the consensus version. Given there are no BLP concerns and the veracity of the material is not disputed, the onus is thus on Alans1977 to gain consensus for the removal of the material, not on the other users. I've restored the original version accordingly while discussion is underway, and I'm going to assume this does not violate the new 1RR restrictions, which I am not entirely familiar with. (I'm happy to self-revert if this does constitute a 1RR violation). IgnorantArmies 13:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The material is exceedingly un-notable and banal given that Tony Abbott is not a professional boxer. He has two blues. Those are achievements he attained during his Rhodes scholarship and therefore directly relevant given that his Rhodes scholarship is included as part of the article. The fact that he boxed as a heavyweight in un-notable to the article as a whole, especially given (once again for the slow) Tony Abbott is not a professional boxer, nor has he ever been. Therefor it logically follows that his stature and the fact that it was disadvantage in boxing is even more un-notable. Finally being able to skillfully clobber other people's head in, despite having a bit of a disadvantage in no way demonstrates anything about any sort of other career choice that does not also involve skillfully clobbering other people's heads in. Using your logic we might as well include material about the color of the gloves he was wearing for each of his fights and how that relates his fashion choices as a politician. Or perhaps the weather on the day he was born in London and how that relates to his day to day disposition. Irrelevant un-notable material. The fact that you argue for its inclusion boggles the mind. Alans1977 (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Alans1977, your personal opinion is irrelevant. You have been told to gain consensus for the removal. I'm not seeing that consensus. If you want to make this a conduct issue, then go right ahead. Without consensus, the material will be reinserted, and you will be awarded increasingly longer blocks. I'll give you an opportunity to self-revert. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Can I just say that this is the most silly revert war I've seen on Australian politics in quite some time? That Abbott had success as an amateur boxer is borderline notable information that says zilch about anything about his subsequent life. I don't get why anyone would overwhelmingly care whether it went in or out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
It goes to personality. Let me just quote a paragraph from another article, and we might consider the two together:

His academic achievements were complemented by setting a new world speed record for beer drinking; he downed 2 1⁄2 imperial pints (1.4 l) - equivalent to a yard of ale - from a sconce pot in 11 seconds as part of a college penalty. In his memoirs, Hawke suggested that this single feat may have contributed to his political success more than any other, by endearing him to a voting population with a strong beer culture.

Abbott's character as a robust/aggressive/determined fighter is amply demonstrated in his political career and is as responsible for his success as Hawke's surfing a yard of ale to glory. That is the point made by the sources, and while on the face of it, a certain lack of height and reach might be seen as being as trivial as a quick drink of beer, that's the popular perception. These little things can make or break a political career. A quick interchange of fluids in the Oval Office, a dollop of earwax, a brawl in a pub - these things seize the attention and create the legend. God forbid that our articles should be made even drier and duller and flatter than they already are; we want people to read our encyclopaedia.
On the policy side, the "height and reach" material has gained consensus through inclusion, and consensus should be gained before it is removed, especially when there is opposition. That goes to the bones of how we work together as a community of editors. --Pete (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that while this is an understandable opinion about Abbott, the evidence in reliable sources for us to be quoting it is a bit dubious. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And as you clearly state DW, it is an opinion.Alans1977 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014

Can someone change where it says the guy would welcome Chinese Troops. The linked article says he would support Chinese Troops participating in military war games. The way its written it sounds like the guy supports some kind of annexation by China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.22 (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks. I've adjusted the wording as per the source to make it clearer. The source raises the possibility of US, Chinese and Aussie troops participating in an exercise. It sure raises the stakes, but we could take 'em. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

The following does not make grammatical sense: "He served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001)..." Please change "He served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001)" to "He served as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), before being promoted to Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001), and subsequently served as..."

Not done: My understanding of British politics is mostly based on watching Yes, Minister, but I'm pretty sure that a parliamentary secretary doesn't get promoted to Minister. :) The current text doesn't seem confusing to me, and I read it to mean: "He served as the parliamentary secretary to several Ministers: the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1996–98), the Minister for Employment Services (1998–2001)..." If you'd like to reword it more explicitly, please reopen this request. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"My understanding of British politics" is not totally relevant to Australian Politics. 

14.202.187.5 (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Scottish independence

Just wondered if it was worth mentioning something about this, perhaps as part of a wider international relations section. Abbott's comments on the forthcoming independence vote have been widely reported in both the UK and Australian media, and the BBC's Phil Mercer makes some interesting observations that could be worth noting here or in a related article. Any thoughts? This is Paul (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Like the Hockey comments on poor people and cars, and the Brandis comments on abortion and breast cancer, this just adds to the list of gaffes that make Abbott and friends look like the second President Bush and friends, but each on it own will ultimately be regarded as pretty trivial. I think WP:10YT tells us not to mention it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I think there should be a foreign policy section and it could be mentioned there. Commenting on the internal affairs of another country, particularly a close ally, is a major breach of diplomacy. There are sections, Charles de Gaulle#Vive le Québec libre! and Ségolène Royal#Canada: Support for the Quebec independence movement about French politicians who commented on Quebec independence. While one should not guess the future, expect further coverage of this story. TFD (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a brief mention of this issue. The problem is, there are so many issues with Abbott, one has to prevent a laundry list of issues, while ensuring comprehensive coverage. A tricky feat. Gotta hand it to Abbott, he's good at creating headlines. For better or worse. But i'm sure he thinks he and his govt are going "just dandy". Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Abbott does it all the time. His instantaneous and widely reported declaration that pro-Russian separatists shot down MH17, so it's all Putin's doing, long before any certainty existed (in fact there's still none!) was another example. He's a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy. Do we report all of the details? HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
No blanket yes, no blanket no. There should be something, but in what form and length/detail. He certainly doesn't make it easy for us. Timeshift (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Parents

The top of the article defines his mother as "australian" and his father as "English-born", referring to someone as "English-born" generally means their ancestry isn't English, which is false in this instance as his father was born in England to two English parents, the "-born", needs to be erased. Stating an "Australian" mother doesn't say much about her ancestry or appearance, the article does however go into detail of his maternal ancestry as his first ancestors to arrive in Australia, but i think the article should refer to his Mother as a European Australian as it does in the article of Penny Wong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.147.166 (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reading the first section does put this into context. His father was born in England but emigrated to Australia. Perhaps there is a better way of saying it. This is Paul (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
How about "Abbott was born in London, England, to an Australian mother and English father, and emigrated to Sydney with his parents in 1960." This is Paul (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Defamation case

There appears to be no mention of the successful defamation case Abbott and Peter Costello brought against Bob Ellis. I think it should be mentioned. For one, he made quite a bit of money from it, which I assume would be a significant amount of his income/wealth, but more importantly, it gives some light on Abbott's ideas regarding free speech. - 101.168.213.83 (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you present more details of the story, or better yet, since all our content needs to be cited to [[WP:RS}reliable sources]], a link to just such a source which tells the story? HiLo48 (talk)
Here is some information. Basically, Bob Ellis published a book! which contained a single sentence where he quoted someone who claimed Tony Abbott, Peter Costello and their future wives were involved in something. Abbott et al sued, and a judge found the sentence was defamatory, awarding them $277,000 and having all copies of the book destroyed. - 101.168.213.83 (talk),
That was quick. Thanks. Interesting story. Not sure if it belongs. I'll think about it. This is a pretty well watched article. Just wait a day or two I'm sure others will have opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. The story was published prior to the 2006 laws on defamation. Hints of sexual misconduct guaranteed a win. Even if the statements were true, and made in the political area, the defendant lost. Post-2006, stating the truth is an absolute defense, in any state. Essentially, the Vic laws and precedence relating to defamation were adopted by the other states.220.244.76.234 (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence should say hes Prime Minister

The first sentence currently says he is an Australian politican, yes he is, but much more importantly, he is the prime minister of Australia, its odd that the article does not lead with that fact. 202.171.168.146 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, so I've changed it. A lá Barack Obama, which is probably a good exemplar for pages of political leaders.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Portrait photo

I've noticed that the photo currently used for Mr. Abbott is not the official portrait image of him. Our previous PM's (Mr. Rudd) photo appears to be the official media photo. The photo could also potentially be argued that it's not a positive photo (lighting and facial expressions).

As there is an official photo posted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website (here) would we be open to updating this photo for Mr. Abbott's profile?

We've discussed this before. The current portrait is excellent. As for Rudd, I'd love to see something better. What we've got is rather vapid. We used to have a lovely one with him smiling - what happened to that? --Pete (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm unsure how it's helpful to say that you want to move Mr. Rudd's photo to a more "lovely" previous one where he is smiling, the current photo for Mr. Rudd appears to be an official (albeit outdated) photo and appears to be sourced off of a government website (foreignminister.gov.au). Mr Abbott's photo is poorly lit and looks like it's come straight from a piece of opposition marketing (Mr. Abbott's current photo technically has been taken by someone at an event looking at the original on Flickr). --Cal.walker1 (talk)
Portraits, by their nature, are works of art. The artist - or photographer, in this case - aims to capture something of the personality of the subject, and personality is a lot of what makes a politician. As opposed to (say) a sportsperson. The portrait here does that very well, as opposed to the official works. The product of a bureaucracy is not necessarily better than that of an individual artist.
I know a little about photography. Abbott's photo is superbly lit. In particular, there's a clean separation against the black background, and a gentle fill coming from the right. It's taken without a flash, by a full-frame DSLR with a very good lens, by someone who knows what they are doing. It has been released under a licence we can use and it was taken during a debate with Julia Gillard in 2010.
The portrait hints at some of the qualities that distinguish Tony Abbott. He glows with determination. The same photographer at the same event also took a photo of Julia Gillard, which we also use as our lead image. It is also superb. A little more evenly lit, with a nice fill from below, she also looks like a fighter.
As opposed to our insipid image of Rudd, where all personality has been carefully drained out. --Pete (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like it captures him rather well. Sorry, couldn't resist. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the problem I have with this photo, it's quite easy to like the photo due to his current political activities and choices instead of selecting an unbiased photo. 203.166.241.193 (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
added the official portrait, apparently its licencing allows it to be used on Wikimedia, it can be used in the article if one chooses..--Stemoc 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
edit:apparently the free licence does not apply to images on the site, just videos and text..quite silly, but its Australia :P ..--Stemoc 23:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We have an excellent photo. Andreas, there has been plentiful amount of discussion and consensus on this page and the archives above. You were part of that discussion, so you cannot plead ignorance. Please gain consensus if you wish to change the image. Timeshift (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't exactly consensus to keep the current photo either. There are some users who want to keep this one and others who want to change it. The photo I tried to change to is much better; he is smiling and it is much more recent. The current photo is almost 5 years old now and is well outdated. A new photo was needed a long time ago and the one I proposed, in my opinion, is the best candidate to succeed the current photo.Andreas11213 (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually the image is fine. You and I recognize it as Tony Abbott, it still is a clear photo of Abbott. And per WP:STATUSQUO, there already is consensus. That can change, but you will need consensus to do that. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The other portrait is also a "clear" photo. The issue is not about clarity of the quality of the photo. The photo currently being used is 5 years old and should be updated. Simple as that. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
And as I mentioned above, consensus is needed. Consensus you do not have right now. It's fine as it is. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Knighthoods

I think we could probably hive that off into its own section. I seem to remember republican leader Malcolm Turnbull said at the time republican France also gives out titles too.

JohnWayneCourier (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Most countries do award knighthoods, including republic's.Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish. Most countries do NOT award knighthoods. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it was Italy that Turnbull mentioned, and I didn't get the feeling he was fully in flavour of the plan. I doubt that too many nations award knighthoods. Anyway, this is probably a news event rather than something worth more than a sentence. Not unless it directly leads to something that's actually notable, like a leadership challenge. Which is entirely on the cards. --Pete (talk) 12:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
See Category:Knights by country, of which only about half apply today. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I should have known Wikipedia would have documented such arcana! Thank you kind sir! --Pete (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Leadership spill

I have reverted a recent addition predicting a leadership spill per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no guarantee that there will be a spill. All we know is that a few backbenchers have said they will propose the spill. They have to carry through with that, and then the vote has to pass, for there to be a spill. Too many "ifs", and things are changing day-by-day. We can wait until Tuesday to update this article. --Surturz (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Internet controversy

In 2014 the internet lit up when several people began looking at Mr Abbott's eligibility to enter parliament. He was born in England to a British father which gave him automatic British citizenship. He got Australian citizenship in 1981 which unfortunately can no longer be confirmed because his file at the National Archives of Australia became a secret document in February 2014. In October 2014 his Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet responded to FOI2014/159[4] by stating that his renunciation of British citizenship papers did not exist. As a federal MP Mr Abbott must comply with S44[5] of the constitution which precludes dual nationals. Many attempts to confirm the lack of renunciation paperwork have been ignored except for one phone call of 13 February 2015[6] where his staff confirmed the FOI was correct. Ms Terri Butler the MP for Griffith in Queensland has written to Mr Abbott to clear up the problem, but no reply has been received 5 weeks after she first asked.[7]

A petition was formulated with 26,000 signatures detailed in this [8] and presented to the leader of the opposition Mr Bill Shorten, the deputy leader of the opposition Tanya Plibersek and the Greens member of the house Mr Adam Bandt asking them to ask Mr Abbott about his dual nationality. The story of his dual nationality has been run on Channel 9 [9] Sky News [10], several times in Independent Australia [11] [12] the English version of the Russian newspaper Pravda [13] and the British newspaper The Daily Mail[14]


One user ignorantarmies has deleted my additions 3 or 4 times. This is extremely annoying especially when I am using such verifiable and important citations. I am providing information from Mr Abbotts own Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, from The Prime Ministers Office,channel 9 tv in Australia, Daily Mail in the UK< Pravda, A member of parliament Ms Terri Butler. What more do you need in a factual citation? Will you please ensure what I have added is some who locked and unchangeable?

What more can I do than provide facts backed up by such reputable sources?

Arcobelina (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if you're putting forward the Daily Mail, a Derryn Hinch editorial, and the English-language Pravda as top-notch "reputable sources" you're not going to have much luck here (I would note english.pravda's current headlines include such gems as "Can erectile dysfunction affect your standard of living?" and "Ukraine's Poroshenko excludes himself from category of real men"). No one's disputing that these claims exist, it's just that they're so ridiculous that we've deliberately chosen not to even mention them. FYI, calling other users "petty" and "annoying" and calling them liars isn't going to get you very far. At least you've stopped editwarring. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ignorantarmies I have put forward Mr Abbotts own department, the Prime Minister and Cabinet FOI as proof he has not renounced his British citizenship [15] you cant get much better than his own department saying he has not renounced his British citizenship. This was confirmed in a phone call [16] and the actual audio of that call, all got legally,[17] Having an edit war created by people who don't bother reading what is actually being published is disgraceful and would point to party political ties trying to close off any discussion. Will admin restore my psot and stop future changes? Arcobelina (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Arcobelina, just a correction. The Dept of PM & C has never said, as you claim, that "his renunciation of British citizenship papers did not exist". They said that "no relevant documents could be found". That is a fundamentally different thing. Now, it may transpire that the reason no relevant documents can be found is that they don't exist. But that still remains to be proven. If any Opposition people seriously believed PM&C have admitted Abbott has never renounced his UK citizenship, they'd have been on top of it long ago.
IgnorantArmies, you certainly don't speak for me when you say the claims are "so ridiculous that we've deliberately chosen not to even mention them". There is no basis on which we can decide either that they're ridiculous or that they have substance. We remain neutral, dispassionate, and non-partisan. In the meantime, until it's resolved one way or another, the matter definitely deserves a mention in the article. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologise if I implied that I was speaking for all editors in the above discussion (which I watched but did not participate), but that was my attempt to sum up the situation to Arcobelina. I (and I think most editors) consider the claims made by both the Barack Obama and Tony Abbott birthers to fit in the category of "ridiculous", and the impression I got from the previous discussion was that mentioning them in the article would be fueling the fire, and thus best avoided. I think an appropriate time to mention the birthers would be if/when some of the mainstream Australian sources pick it up – I can't find anything about it in any of the major dailies, but correct me if I'm wrong. For the moment, there seems to only be a Daily Mail article and a Guardian opinion piece as semi-decent RS, so I think WP:UNDUE comes into strong consideration. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It should be ridiculous to think that the leader of a country such as the USA or Australia would ever allow rumours of their constitutional ineligibility to hold office to stand one more minute than necessary. They could easily put such rumours to rest by producing the relevant documents. Obama did finally release his birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii, but only after many, many months of allowing the rumours of a Kenyan birth to run rampant. The longer he delayed, the more people wondered what he may have had to hide. PM&C say they cannot find any Abbott UK renunciation document in their records. That must mean Abbott has never given it to them and retains it personally. I can't believe he's lost or destroyed it. Why, then, doesn't Abbott release it, and earlier rather than later? The time will inexorably come when he will no longer be able to stonewall people who have a genuine interest in this matter. Maybe he's hoping it'll all just die away after he's inevitably relieved of his premiership, but while ever he remains a member of parliament, the issue is not closed. Even if he were to resign from parliament, and it later transpired he'd never renounced his UK citizenship till after he was elected, he'd still be in serious difficulty. This is by no means a trivial matter, and every day Abbott remains silent about it, it becomes more pressing. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

I have reported the ongoing edit war to ANI: [23] --Surturz (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you should've had a closer look at the material I was removing before recommending I be blocked, Surturz. WP:BLPREMOVE (and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY for that matter) override 3RR, and waiting a few hours for another editor to come remove Arcobelina's ramblings would've been silly – this is a very high traffic article. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't recommending you specifically be blocked - I recommended all participants be blocked. You are 100% correct that 3RR doesn't apply if there are BLP violations, but this article is under 1RR and you should have reported the other editor when they violated that, rather than engaging in the edit war. --Surturz (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Policy on Refugees

Why is there no section on Tony Abbott's government policy regarding refugees not included? He is now lecturing the European Union on how to deny access to Europe for asylum seekers but there is a serious human rights question regarding the kidnapping of people on the high seas and then transporting them against their will to a Nauru detention camp. Nothing of this is included in the article and how the Australian policy can be justified in international law.OrodesIII (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-urges-australia-to-oust-untrustworthy-gillard-20100717-10euq.html?autostart=1
  2. ^ http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/labor-takes-early-lead-in-two-party-preferred-galaxy-poll/story-e6frfllr-1225893422815
  3. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-oxford-transcript-released-20131125-2y6a1.html
  4. ^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/i-love-racist-free-country-plan-for.html
  5. ^ http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s44.html
  6. ^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/a-phone-call-to-pms-office.html
  7. ^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/a-reply-from-hon-terri-butler-mp.html
  8. ^ https://www.change.org/p/tony-abbott-show-us-your-papers-renouncing-your-british-citizenship-before-you-were-elected
  9. ^ http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/09/02/17/35/tony-abbott-may-have-been-ineligible-to-stand-for-election
  10. ^ http://www.skynews.com.au/video/program_hinch/2015/02/01/editorial---the-week-that-was-february-1.html
  11. ^ https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-strange-and-suspicious-case-of-tony-abbotts-citizenship,6859
  12. ^ https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/tiad-of-fudging-on-the-citizenship-issue,6882
  13. ^ http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/feedback/14-11-2014/128838-tony_abbott_australia-0/
  14. ^ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927631/Is-Tony-Abbott-BRITISH-citizen-Labor-MP-writes-letter-Prime-Minister-demanding-proves-s-not-dual-citizen.html
  15. ^ https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B42C_wWg31otWnE4Z0dtVEZpYzA/view
  16. ^ http://tonymagrathea.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/a-phone-call-to-pms-office.html
  17. ^ http://federalicacnow.com/podcast/?name=2015-02-16_abbotts_office_canberra_13_09-23-01_aest_2015_conv.mp3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tony_Abbott/Archive_2&oldid=1136227492"