Jump to content

Talk:Julia Gillard/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Ballarat Botanical Gardens bust

Where is the traditional Ballarat Bust? :) --Surturz (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not try reading Prime Ministers Avenue? :) Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot-inserted trivial pronunciations at tops of Australian bio articles

I've removed this one and complained to the ?Estonian runner of the bot User:TXiKiBoT. Gillard is readily pronouncable by any English-speaker, and it's inappropriate to clutter the opening with one of those IPA equivalents that hardly anyone can decipher, anyway. To start with, the IPA was rhotic, with the post-vocalic R, which is not the way Australians or Gillard herself (or Welsh people) pronounce the word. Second, it was silent on the emphasis on the first syllable. If anyone knows of other Australian bio articles that have been interfered with by this bot, please let me know. Tony (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

And I see that while I wrote that post, someone called Mschilz20, recently registered, came along and reverted me, calling me a vandal. I've reinstated my version and expect discussion here if there's a problem. Tony (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with removing this: few English speakers (native or otherwise) are going to have trouble with 'Julia Gillard'. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree; there are a bunch of Australian bios that could use some careful pronunciation guidance, but this really isn't one of them. Frickeg (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Gillard's Abortion Stance

as noted earlier it is self evident that Gillard has no children but is reported that she was pregnant to Bruce Wilson (engaged at the time). Her political stance on abortion has been (as noted on the current wiki page) she thinks "poor women wouldn't be able to make such a commitment" - at the time of her pregnancy she was a senior partner in a law firm and pregnant; obviously not poor. This is factual and not opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.255.5 (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that this IP address is allocated to TREASURY-WA-AU. WWGB (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But it's "factual and not opinion". It's on the interwebs, so we must include it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

merge of AWU scandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was do not merge Surturz (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

AWU scandal has had a mergeto tag on it for several days. I have added the mergefrom tag to Julia Gillard. It is time that the merge proposal is discussed in a calm way. I have therefore started this discussion.

  • Oppose merge This "scandal" is being used by her enemies to attack Gillard. Since it hit the mainstream press, nothing has arisen to confirm her knowing involvement in any corruption, but we still have the "scandal" on front pages. Is it a union scandal or a Gillard scandal? There is no evidence that it should be the latter, but I'm certain that many still want it to be discussed that way in order to say negative things about her. It's political dirt and muck raking at its worst, pretending to be serious news about a union. The story as we report it should not involve Gillard. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge it is a historical event which is notable in the growth of abuse/exploitation of union funds by union management and sanctioned by union management. It extends to Gillard, but is not contained with Gillard. DDB (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm also not sure that there's enough to warrant keeping the article on its own, and a merger won't bring a lot here that we can reasonably say - it would end up being a fairly short summary. But I'm inclined to wait a bit longer to see if the story has legs this time around beyond the allegations. - Bilby (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I am reminded strongly of the Utegate article - I argued for deletion of that early on, but came around to the view that it was worth keeping. Even if the AWU scandal article is eventually deleted, I think it is currently serving a purpose. Imagine someone reading Pickering's site, wondering if the allegations were true, and then coming here and finding nothing. I think we've had two new WP accounts come in and edit the article as their first edits - I think that implies that we are having people coming to WP looking for information on the issue. --Surturz (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2012 (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.

Recent edit of Villawood

Villawood detention centre is not in Villawood. It is in Chester Hill, and is opposite Chester Hill High School. Villawood is merely the name of the centre, not the location. The suburb is adjacent to Chester Hill. DDB (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polls

I've removed some conjecture about opinion polls as per WP:CRYSTAL. Opinion polls are not fact, nor can any link between current events and changes in polls be made with any certainty. --Surturz (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the information and I don't think the removal was appropriate. An opinion poll certainly is a fact. It's the most reliable means of gauging public opinion, more so than media commentary which currently dominates the section. The main concern about the poll would be that the linkage is indirect: it suggests an association rather than a causal relationship. If you can think of a better wording, perhaps we can reach a compromise, but poll evidence definitely deserves to be included for want of a better alternative. Lachrie (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the garbled edit summary; I hit the wrong key. The point is that the media commentary which is being used to frame the narrative is obviously more speculative than a poll of public opinion from a reputable agency, so it would be a misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL to remove it on the grounds of "unverifiable speculation". Lachrie (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
On reflection, the best solution is probably to reference an appropriate news report which states the same. Lachrie (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
For the record - this section is discussing this edit [1]. I agree that the sentence is potentially valid to include, but that the poll itself is probably not the best reference as it constitutes a primary source and the sentence is an interpretation of that source. Better would be to wait a couple of days and see if there are two, independent reliable sources that make this interpretation and cite those. Wittylama 05:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the gender politics opinion poll text again. Please do not add it back. We should only mention opinion polls where they cause something to happen (e.g. removal of K Rudd). We should not use them to assess events in the article - otherwise half the article would be opinion polling! --Surturz (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've added another source as per Witty's request. More to follow. Lachrie (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the opinion polling text for a third time. Please be aware that you will likely violate the three revert rule if you add it back. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I added a new source citing polling which is as reliable as any other in the section. This meets your objection and is a substantial change which renders your reversion and appeal to three revert rule invalid. Lachrie (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that Essential uses a two week rolling average, so at half the respondents to the survey were contacted in the previous week. As such, this survey doesn't support the claims which are being attributed to it, and I think that this should be removed. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No, that would merely dilute the effect; not render the interpretation invalid. We have a secondary source for the interpretation, and given the extent of media exposure, the interpretation seems entirely reasonable. It's also important to include survey data since large claims have been made in the section about the public reaction, without putting it into a larger and potentially more meaningful context. Lachrie (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Nick-D, if you think the content should be removed, then remove it. Once it is in there for a while it becomes the "consensus version" and becomes harder to remove. FWIW I think Lachrie has violated 3RR by attempting to insert similar content in four times now. --Surturz (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather discuss the topic a bit than join in on the edit war ;) Lachrie: maybe the movement reflected the debate, or maybe it was the result of responses well before that. Given Essential's methodology, it can't safely be used to interpret the short-term reaction to events (Essential's results seem to be quite good over the long term, and they often have one-off questions on specific topics which are very useful, but given that they sample over two weeks, it's not an almost point in time figure like what Newspoll and Nielsen produce (I think that a Nielsen is due out this week by the way - most likely tomorrow?). Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I added a reliable secondary source specifically in order to meet Surturz's initial and quite fair objection, so the 3RR doesn't apply, and it's therefore inappropriate to raise the 3RR again without supporting argument. I've given reasons and no one has yet articulated a serious relevant objection, which they should do if they want to remove legitimate content. Nick-D, your criticism of the Essential poll seems less plausible and relevant than the interpretation in the secondary news source, given the coincidence of the unusual shift in approval ratings and the large and sensationalist coverage of the speech, so I don't think your objection holds water or should take precedence over the interpretation given in the cited source. Lachrie (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather see opinion polls not used at all, but if they are, they must only be used in bare form. No interpretation should ever be presented, whether it be by us, by the media, or by the pollsters. Leave the interpretation to our readers. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
There is and should be no general prohibition on citing media interpretation of polls or any other source of information, for reasons that are obvious, especially in such discussions involving public reaction to political debates and events. Lachrie (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with those obvious reasons, whatever they are. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Likewise: adding blow-by-blow polling results would be silly (eg, if Gillard's approval rate goes down next week, does it mean that the text has to be altered to say that voters decided that they didn't like what she said once they'd reflected on the topic?). Lachrie, 3RRR does actually apply - the wording at WP:3RR is very clear about this ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time [emphasis added] —counts as a revert."). I'm not criticizing Essential - who I think are one of the better polling outfits - I'm just explaining how their methodology works. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a misuse of the term "revert"; since I added material in good faith that met the initial objection, Surturz was wrong to remove it again reflexively a second time, without providing a relevant objection actually addressing the new material. Arguing about subjectively-perceived rules doesn't add anything to the process of resolving the disagreement about the article content, whereas adding the necessary source did. Since public reaction is key to the speech's notability, and a perceived divergence was already brought up and added to the article, a survey of public reaction is obviously important and relevant, so more general objections to the use polling from HiLo48 or Surturz aren't pertinent in this specific context. Lachrie (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not even as if the news source commenting on the polling says anything especially contentious or exciting as compared with the other sources already cited in this section; if anything, it dilutes the overly-sentationalist coverage in a section already largely built up on flimsy media commentary. Lachrie (talk)
I don't care what it says. We don't need anybody's opinion. The fact that some are there already doesn't justify more. They should probably be deleted too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Public opinion is important in a democracy, and always relevant to articles about elected politicians. Lachrie (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
We obviously cover elections, and actions which politicians make on the basis of polling should also be included (for instance, the Rudd Government's decision to dump the carbon price or the Howard Government's attempts to soften the WorkChoices reforms after they were implemented). Long term trends in polling should also be noted when they're significant. However, there's no need to include blow by blow commentary on individual opinion polls in articles - this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or a current affairs blog . Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, you're restating a general objection which I agree with; however, the general objection isn't pertinent here: it's already been pointed out that this instance can be reasonably regarded as a necessary exception to that general practice, as much of the section is already devoted to public reaction to the Slipper speech: social media, international commentators, the Canberra press corps, and now a wider public survey which helps to put that media reaction in a larger political context. Lachrie (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It basically says that each proposal needs to be considered on its own merits. The fact that other stuff exists does not help your case. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The case doesn't need any help, since no one's managed to articulate a logical or plausible objection. The use of evidence is entirely consistent with the rest of the material in the section and isn't controversial, as it comes from a major reliable news source which no other media have taken issue with. Lachrie (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
The more you continue to completely dismiss and ignore ALL that others post, the weaker your case becomes. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No objection has been ignored; each had been analysed in turn, and the underlying fallacies exposed. If you genuinely object to the entire section on public reaction to the Slipper debate, as you implied, it might be more sensible to start a new section below, rather than giving my contribution such disproportionate attention. As it is, public reaction to the Slipper debate and Gillard's speech has received extensive coverage and analysis in the media, so among public commentators you appear to be in the minority in dismissing its importance. Lachrie (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but that isn't how things work around here: we work on the consensus based editing based on discussions among interested editors, and there's clearly no consensus to include these poll results (quite the opposite in fact). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources in gender section

Anne Summers is not an NPOV source. Peter Harthcer rightly describes her as "The Labor partisan Anne Summers". This means we either name her when quoting her and note her party affilitations, or we don't cite her at all.Observoz (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 October 2012

Please change: The panel ultimately announced backing for a temporary carbon tax, leading in to an Emissions Trading Scheme. During the 2010 Election campaign, Gillard said that no carbon tax would be introduced under a government she led.[104] In the first hung parliament result in 70 years, the Gillard Government, with the support of the Australian Greens and some cross bench independents, negotiated the implementation of a carbon tax (the preferred policy of the Australian Greens), by which a fixed-price carbon tax would proceed to a floating-price ETS within a few years under the plans. The government proposed the Clean Energy Bill in February 2011,[105] which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise.[106]


To

"The panel ultimately announced backing for a an Emissions Trading Scheme with a temporary fixed price. During this election campaign Gillard supported pricing carbon, saying:

"If elected as prime minister, I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad."[10]

Later in the campaign she said:

“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear, I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an ETS.”[11]

However, she made it clear on the day prior to the election that she strongly supported a carbon pricing mechanism, claiming that her victory would be "a mandate for a carbon price".[12]

The result of the election left Australia with its first hung parliament in 70 years. To form a majority in the House of Representatives both of the major parties needed to acquire the support of cross-benchers, including the Greens. After two weeks of deliberation Julia Gillard had enough support to gain a majority including the support of the Greens and their single MP in the House, Adam Bandt. Julia Gillard, therefore, remained Prime Minister and Tony Abbott remained in opposition.

One of the requirements for Green support was that the Gillard Government form a cross-party parliamentary committee to determine policy on climate change. Gillard honoured that agreement and on 27 September 2010 the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee (MPCCC) was formed, its terms of reference including that it was to report to Cabinet on ways to introduce a carbon price.[13][14]

The MPCCC agreed on the introduction of a fixed-price ETS commencing 1 July 2012, transitioning to a cap-and-trade ETS on 1 July 2015.[15] In February 2011, the government proposed the Clean Energy Bill,[16] which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise.[17] The Liberal Party vowed to overturn the bill if it was elected claiming that the fixed part of the price on carbon was a tax.[18]

The Clean Energy Plan was released on 10 July 2011.[9] The Clean Energy Bill 2011 passed the Lower House in October 2011 and the Upper House in November 2011 and was thus brought into law.[19][20] The carbon price was brought into effect on 1 July 2012."

because the original text implied that the ETS came into effect after the fixed price. This is not correct. The initial fixed price period has been described as a carbon tax, but in fact there will be one system introduced into Parliament for legislation and it will be an emissions trading scheme, with a transitional period for the first 3-5 years in which the permits will be sold at a fixed price. It means that all the rules underpinning the system from the start will be those of the permanent market-based trading scheme. sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia 

        http://www.monash.edu.au/news/show/not-a-carbon-tax-an-emissions-trading-scheme

SOUPS1976 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The quote marked (11) is unsourced, unless you count a private blog and anonymous comments on mainstream news items. If she said it, when and where? --Pete (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This proposed edit would not improve our article. Even Gillard and her Cabinet use the terminology of "carbon tax" so we can call a spade a spade on that one. And your suggestion that Greens support for Labor was contingent on a Carbon tax is occasionally claimed by Labor figures, but is without evidence - the Greens were not going to support Tony Abbott under any circumstances and had offered support to Labor before the election. Gillard made a political judgement that she could ditch her "consensus plan" and launch into an ETS via a tax period. Here is Gillard on Insiders in February of this year, admitting just that (she admits its a "carbon tax" and that an "emissions trading scheme" will "follow", which is how our article correctly described the situation already):

Well, I've explained the circumstances of the last election campaign, and when I said those words about a carbon tax I meant every one. But our nation's been involved in a debate now for many long years about putting a price on carbon and tackling climate change and we have got this done. Yes, with a fixed price, a carbon tax, if you like, for the first three years and then an emissions trading scheme to follow.

Observoz (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per above. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong information in article.

wedder speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article states that Julia Gillard has never been married, this is not the case although it is true that she was (and is) unmarried on becoming Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.154.13 (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really, and your source for that information? WWGB (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"Like a growing number of women, Gillard never set out to not get married or not have children, but that is just the way her life turned out" Seems as though she's never been married, as per what her article already states. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 11:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the OP is thinking of de facto marriages, and certainly Gillard has been in several long term relationships with a variety of partners, including her current one. But I think our readership would like that piece of paper before we describe her as "married". However, she may have been married quietly and the files have gotten lost or something. If the OP has any information, names, dates, happy snaps? --Pete (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that we're getting well into the realms of birtherism with suggestions like that. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't descend that low. But sometimes people get married quietly for all sorts of reasons, and don't let on. If the OP has anything of substance - which I doubt - they would be better placed with the media. The Australian would happily listen to their story. They could send us a wedding certificate, all sorts of proof, but we couldn't use it anyhow, because we can't use a primary source. Anyway, ain't nuttin' going in our article until we get a reliable source. Julia Gillard is, so far as we are concerned, happily unmarried and good on her. And Tim. --Pete (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep, no evidence or suggestion of marriage to my knowledge. Another source on this topic is the Australian Story about Julia Gillard:

MOIRA GILLARD, MOTHER: I never thought Julia would marry, neither of my children married. I think she was about 18, she said, 'I don't want children, Mum, I never want children.' JULIA GILLARD: I suspect if I had made a different set of choices, I would have been a very conservative parent. I'm kind of full of admiration for women who can mix it together, working and having kids, but I'm not sure I could have. There's something in me that's focused and single-minded and if I was going to do that, I'm not sure I could have done this.

Observoz (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, with Julia Gillard, you've got to pick over what she says to see if she's actually answered the question, and neither mother nor daughter explicitly say she was never married. But, what a question! If she was married and wants to keep it quiet - which I doubt - then that's her business. This is a BLP and if we don't have a source it doesn't go in. Anyone got a source? No? Okay then. --Pete (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
(ec x 2) If they could provide a link to some official Registry of BDM where the certificate was sourced, we could use it then. And get a huge scoop over all the newspapers. Any newspaper, not just The Oz, would pay an arm and a leg for proof of a legal marriage that the PM has always denied has ever occurred. (Btw, I'm not Jack of The Oz, just Jack of Oz. I almost never read it.)
But this is all fluff, because there is simply no reason, zero, to believe any such marriage has ever taken place. Witnesses would have spilled their guts by now. And why would she deny it anyway, when acknowledging it would make her instantly more relatable to all the ex-married people in Australia, which would be at least 35% of all adults. The onus is on 86.167 to back up their unsupported assertion. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 00:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Gender politics

At the moment, the gender politics section of the article is, to put it simply, huge. The only comparable section is the one on asylum seekers, yet the gender polictics issue is mostly relating only to Slipper. I'm wondering if it might be best to trim it back a bit? That's a lot of attention being paid to the issue, and it seems a bit more than it warrants. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Looks to me like WP:UNDUE due to WP:RECENTISM. There's a lot of media attention right now. There probably won't be in a months time. Something else will have hit the political headlines. We need to rewrite it at the level if significance it will have in ten years time, which is probably very little. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The issue has caused the Macquarie Dictionary to broaden the definition of the word "misogyny", which in turn has caused the Opposition to criticise the Macquarie. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Noticed that today - was just about to add it in as a footnote to show how influential the issue/speech was. As the person who's added most of the content to what is now the "gender politics" section I have a vested interest in it not being deleted, but I am sensitive to the fact that the content of the section is primarily about the speech (and reactions to it) rather than the broader issue of gender politics. Recentism is quite a legitimate criticism in that context. However, rather than merely dropping all that work, do you think the speech (and subsequent cultural/political impact) is worthy of breaking out into an article in its own right? I think it is now of equal or greater significance than the Jones' Shame controversy which does have an article already (yes - I know the fact of another article's existence is not a criteria for creation of this one). This would allow the general "gender politics" stuff to either be merged back into the intro paragraphs of the "prime minister" section, or left as a smaller version of where it is now. Wittylama 02:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
A separate article on the speech and its impact could be viable. I think the safest thing to say about the dictionary and Opposition response story today is that both parties have done pretty much what would probably be expected of them, as with much of the rest of this story. When something truly surprising happens is when we should be creating serious content for this article. Most of what is there now is day to day political pap. (And it's worth noting that Gillard's speech wasn't independent of the Jones issue. It came in response to Abbott's "shame" point.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is enough yet to warrant a separate article, but it is worth considering, and I'd be happy if otehrs felt that there was. :) In regard to trimming, I don't want to loose most of that work, whatever happens. But perhaps some of the quotes could be reduced, and it could be tightened a bit more. For example, Tyson's opinion is interesting, but it doesn't seem to be that significant.
It just feels a bit odd to have a lot more on one speech than, for example, her stance on immigration or climate change, both of which have played a bigger role in her time as PM. - Bilby (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Bilby - agreed. That's why when I was originally writing this it was not it's own section and I was using the reactions to the speech to talk about how gender politics has become important during this period. However, the section has been turned more into a history of the slipper affair which, though the proximate cause of the speech, is not IMHO the "point" of the section. Nevertheless, the speech, the slipper affair, and the reactions to it, should be kept in some way/shape/form as they've formed an important (though transient) part of recent Australian politics that's worth having somewhere in the encyclopedia. But yes, this section should be smaller than climate change! Wittylama 03:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit too early to make it a separate article. Per WP:EVENT, it has ticked the "geographical coverage" box with the international coverage, but it has not yet proved it has any "lasting effects". I would suggest making a temporary subpage here on the talkpage, and moving content from the Julia Gillard article to that page. That way we can trim coverage in the JG article without losing the other content. If the speech eventually fulfils WP:EVENT, then the subpage can be promoted. If not, it can be deleted. --Surturz (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That said, I think an article covering Slipper's rise and fall as speaker would probably be worth writing. Gillard's speech would have a place in that. --Surturz (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole Slipper story is a pretty amazing one, and still ongoing. I can't wait for the movie ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole choice of Peter Slipper needs inclusion one way or another, as the whole affair has been so totally unusual and it has been one of the defining actions taken by Gillard so far and is important context to Gillard's speech and the varying reactions to it. Also, the "sexism" allegation was not first raised by Gillard because of the Abbott motion against Slipper - Gillard used similar language regarding the awu affair. Bob Brown and others were claiming sexism about carbon tax criticisms too long before this. Then there;s all the talk of a Labor "strategy" to make gender an issue during this prime ministership etc. So the topic has been ongoing and I'd say doesn't belong in a general section "Prime Minister". Trimming is ok, but it's also tricky: we can't for example, leave in a quote from an obscure UK writer and leave out a sample of the general view from the more proximate Canberra press gallery.Observoz (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there probably is a deliberate strategy at play here from Labor. It's the sort of thing parties do to damage their opponents. The Lib strategy on the "carbon tax" is a similar one. Not a lot of concrete truth required in either campaign, but all designed to get media attention, and parts of society on side. But it's very hard for us to include anything about such strategies as being deliberate. The parties won't tell tell us it's what they're doing. And having said that, the strategies are really party strategies, rather than being directly relevant to Gillard's or Abbott's articles. I don't have a magic solution, but I also don't want to see Wikipedia being sucked into playing the politicians' games. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This sort of material can be included with WP:CONS and a little bit of WP:IAR. All that is needed are some notable opinions stating that there is strategy in place, such as [2] and [3] - auspol commentators from both left and right opine that it is an orchestrated campaign, and we can say that. We cannot state the existence of the strategy as a fact, but we can state that the belief that it is a strategy is a notable opinion ("Australian political journalists believed this to be a deliberate strategy.." or similar wording). --Surturz (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just done some trimming of the section. On the other question of an article for Slipper, I agree it should be done sooner or later - maybe at the conclusion of the civil proceedings against him? We don't yet know the full ramifications of the affair, given that it is not yet concluded although given the rarity of a Speaker resigning, there is already a clear case for notability.Observoz (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

An idea

What would everyone think about renaming the "gender politics" section as "First female Prime Minister"? I don't think feminism per se has been a big theme of Gillard's tenure. She has not really pushed any feminist policies very strongly - I would say maternity leave and childcare policies have been less visible than climate change and refugee policies, for example. As far as gender politics goes, the issue really has been whether she is receiving unfair criticism because of her sex. "First female Prime Minister" seems a more interesting subtitle to me, and gives us a slightly broader scope to talk about Gillard's treatment by her opponents and the media, as well as her response to that. --Surturz (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The issues do obviously have something to do with her being female, but it's not clear that they have anything to do with her being the first. That would involve some interpretation, and speculation that it wouldn't happen to a second or later female PM, which we don't know, and we're not supposed to do. HiLo48 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Trouble is that drawing a nexus between being a "female" and being criticised skirts towards a POV - ie the POV being promoted by Gillard and some of her supporters that she has somehow been the subject of an unusual level of criticism which should be attributed to sexism - rather than merely subject to the usual level of unpleasant criticism that every prime minister since Barton has had to face. I think "gender politics" is better than "first female prime minister" as it is more specific, and allows examination of the gender issues and accusations that Gillard and some of her Cabinet are campaigning on, without conceding the controversial and highly debatable POV point that their assertions are correct.Observoz (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Surturz's suggestion. Observoz's POV concerns can be negated by not limiting the section to criticisms. A section entitled "Gender politics" would lead readers to beleieve this is a major theme in her policies, which (as pointed out above) it is not. Being the country's first female PM is highly notable and drawing attention to this would not be undue IMO.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting and valid points - in both directions. It's not much help to the debate, but I would be happy with both "gender politics" or "first female prime minister", with a preference for the former along the lines that HiLo48 argued. I agree with Surturz that there are several things that should go in such a section (e.g. maternity leave and childcare policies) which leaves the details of the Slipper affair to be mentioned briefly but not given the undue weight they currently receive in her Bio. I see now that the "peter slipper" part has become its own subsection which, IMO, makes it easier to move into a standalone article or, at least, into Gillard_Government#Craig_Thomson_and_Peter_Slipper, but not here in the biography. Wittylama 05:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Just following up on this to make sure others are ok with the idea. I would like to move nearly the whole 'Peter slipper' subsection into the article Gillard_Government#Craig_Thomson_and_Peter_Slipper. I would leave the final mini-paragraph (starting "Following the events of 9 October...") here, at the end of the Gender Politics section.
The reason I would like to do this is basically for "undue weight" on this particular issue in what is supposed to be a biography article. This subsection is the only one that is named after, and focuses on, the activities of someone else - and that person is most definitely a minor player in the totality of her biography not deserving of a subsection in his own right. OK? Wittylama 04:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You have full agreement from me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Seems to me that this section has some stuff which one way of another needs to remain in the article and it seems logical to me to include it in a package leading up to the Peter Slipper resignation - although I agree that "Peter Slipper" is not a wide enough title for the subsection. Key points to cover are i) that Gillard replaced Jenkins with Slipper; ii) that this was followed by her breaking her written agreement with Wilkie; iii) that Gillard elected to stand by Slipper even after she knew of his texts (around June); iv) that gillard opposed a motion to remove slipper in October and attacked Abbott; v) that this attack was criticised by close observers but went viral online. This sequence of events needn't be described in the detail in which it currently occurs, but is all important detail of Gillard's prime ministership. By all means shift any detail here not yet in Gillard Govt article, but can we work at only trimming the text as it stands for this article?Observoz (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm more of the opinion that this section about the speakership etc. belongs in the "gillard government" article while the only bits that are relevant to this article - her biography - are the gender politics stuff. However I'm happy to include the elements you identified into the existing section on genderpolitics by way of it being properly contextualised. Is this what you were suggesting? How about I move the section across and then we see what's missing? Wittylama 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, proper contextualisation is the important thing.Observoz (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved a lot of the Slipper/speech stuff to the Gillard Gov't article and tried to work it in smoothly (removing duplicated sentences/references and maintaining the chronology. This reduces the undue weight of the gender politics section back here and, IMO, gives a concise but adequate summary of the issue as it pertains to gender politics in her personal biography. Wittylama 04:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Generally ok with those changes, but I've added a brief outline of Slipper background, noting Gillard's "dark cloud" announcement and also referencing Craig Thomson, who otherwise goes unmentioned throughout the artilce, though is undoubtedly one of the significant issues she's had to deal with.Observoz (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Good-o. Appropriate context, I agree. :-) I've also reinstated a link out to the Alan Jones shame controversy as it is also significant to the context of gender politics, her family and "the speech". Wittylama 04:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012

Please change "She is the first female to hold either office." to "She is the first woman to hold either office."

Thinking about it from the other perspective, you wouldn't say "He's the first male to hold either office." You'd say "He's the first man to hold either office." Using the word "Female" makes the introduction sound too formal and awkward.

Thanks! Spacedout2500 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sounds reasonable. Our Julia is as much a woman as Margaret Thatcher. Tim and Denis, what a pair. --Pete (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

carbon tax/ETS promise

Can anyone find a reference article that states whether she promised an Emissions Trading Scheme before the last election? I do remember seeing a video of it but can't find out which program it was or any online reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.108.199 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel the section on Gillard's Climate Change policy in this article to be partisan and disingenuous. Gillard was on National TV claiming that there would be no carbon tax under any government she leads. Her Deputy went so far as to state that any suggestion Labor would introduce a carbon tax after the election were "hysterical" and "nonsense". In this context, for the article to state in relation to Gillard's subsequent introduction of a carbon tax: "which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise.[103]" is disingenuous. It is widely held by all in the entire country, except for that small band of hard-core Government apologists, that it straight up IS a broken promise. The fact that it is a broken promise is not a "claim", it is manifest fact. Can we please change this part of the article to reflect this fact?Dickmojo (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Gillard alone has not introduced a carbon tax. The government has, with the assistance of the independents and Greens. Many would suggest that it was demanded of the government by the Greens. It's our job to accurately describe what has happened. Attaching a particular, politically loaded label to it does not add encyclopaedic value. Readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Julia Gillard's carbon price promise was in The Australian the day before the 2010 election, which begins "Julia Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term." It seems to come down to the semantics of whether the scheme is a "tax" or a "price on carbon emissions"—the government and its supporters will say the Clean Energy Future scheme is a package of mechanisms including a carbon price, not a tax and hence there was no broken promise, and that Labor was indicating they would in fact introduce a carbon price or other pollution reduction scheme in this term. Those who oppose the government will define it as a tax, and therefore a crucial broken promise or a lie. That statements about this from both the government and opposition can be interpreted in different ways, the best we can do is to list those statements, and let readers make their own interpretation as HiLo48 suggests, without applying politically loaded terms such as "promise" and "lie". --Canley (talk) 07:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. We should report the statement accurately, allowing readers to determine for themselves if the carbon tax is a carbon tax. My impression is that the only people who aren't calling it a carbon tax are those who are keen to make Gillard technically honest. A rather circular piece of argument which convinces nobody. --Pete (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
We have a good source for her statement here. Interestingly, Gillard also said she wants to build the infrastructure which she is now blaming others for. The issue of credibility is a major one for Gillard, and the carbon tax promise, which we are sure to see many times as a Coalition ad in the next election campaign, is difficult for her to counter. --Pete (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I like your edit to the article, but I do wish you could keep your commentary and your hatred of Gillard and Labor off this page. It adds nothing to Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I do beg your pardon. I had not noticed anything which could be construed as hatred. What I dislike is pushing propaganda - from any partisan group - as encyclopaedic truth. I'm really looking forward to seeing Bob Carr as Prime Minister. --Pete (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I make no comment on the credibility of that. I will just again ask you to please drop the political commentary. Your opinion of Bob Carr is part of that. It's both irrelevant and inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
You're telling me I hate Labor, and yet I prefer Bob Carr (or Kim Beazley, if it comes to that) over Tony Abbott. You tell me that I hate certain people and things and I know within myself that you are dead wrong. I can't find anything here which could be construed as hatred, but you claim to see it plainly. You are wrong. Simple as that. I long ago learnt the lesson that ascribing simple motives to complex people is problematic. Please think about it, and think about what sort of similar flaws you are putting into our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
If you drop the political commentary altogether, I promise to not try to guess your motives for your political comments. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It is absolutely hilarious that you attack Skyring about inappropriate comments on a talk page yet in relation to Gillard's Abortion Stance you use sarcasm. You can't have it both ways. Care to retract your criticism of Skyring in the face of your use of sarcasm?

203.202.52.99 (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Same-sex marriage" or "marriage equality" terminology?

I don't want to get into an edit war on this issue but it seems reasonably straightforward that, according the NPOV policies and the more reliable third party sources, the appropriate terminology is "same-sex marriage" rather than "marriage equality". This is the term that is overwhelmingly used in third party NPOV sources, including the references in the article, whereas "marriage equality" is a more POV term which is mostly used by activists on the issue. Therefore I think this issue needs discussion. Afterwriting (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposed changes to the Marriage Act are to also facilitate marriage between people who are neither male nor female (ie intersex). These people cannot be in a same-sex relationship, and so the term 'marriage equality' is used, as it caters for all types of relationships, not just those that are gender-binary. The media seem to prefer to make this just about gay or same-sex relationships but this is incorrect. Mikey Bear (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
"Same-sex marriage" is the common term. "Marriage equality" may be technically correct in some situations, but is not helpful because it won't have a clearly understood meaning for most readers. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the purpose of an encyclopedia to encourage technical accuracy, improve the reader's understanding of issues and correct misinformation?
  1. The ALP's platform itself refers to 'marriage equality' (http://www.andrewbarr.com.au/story/australian-rainbow-labor-news-flash-proposed-national-platform-wording-announced).
  2. There are two bills currently before parliament that have the term 'marriage equality' in their title ("Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012" and "Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010").
  3. It's no excuse to perpetuate poor or inaccurate terminology. People can read up on what "marriage equality" means in a relevant section. If that section doesn't exist someone can write it, and if it's not sufficiently informative, someone can expand it to be so. That's what an encyclopedia is for, to educate people.
Lastly, if "marriage equality" is not sufficiently neutral, then perhaps I could suggest the section heading simply be called "Position on marriage"? That way there is complete neutrality and accuracy. Mikey Bear (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately "Marriage equality" is too vague a term to be meaningful. Equality of what? It could mean anything. --Surturz (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The word "equality" in "marriage equality" refers to equality of access to marriage under civil law. It's a term that has been in use for some time now and is understood by many in government and elsewhere in society. It's not especially confusing. Mikey Bear (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK let's use both. Leave the current text and add a sentence about the Marriage Equality Act 2012. --Surturz (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


This is related to the same-sex marriage section -- although it's not exactly about the terminology (but this seemed like the closest place to raise the issue): I've just gone over a number of Gillard statements, and it does not appear that this section accurately represents the position she puts forward, which appears to be not so much that she is defending the definition of marriage itself as thinking that marriage itself is not, and should not be, the central mode of partner/relationship legitimation. This seems important, because she appears to keep attempting to make it clear that her govt has ensured equality of access to federal programs, etc. (e.g. superannuation) -- just that these do not need to be "marriage" per se. Kvcad (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

While not thrilled at thematic clutter at the top, it does appear that some people mistakenly use a soft J rather than a hard G. IPA gobbledy is understood by hardly anyone.

What about (pron. Gillard, not Jillard)?

Tony (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

"Hard G" is intuitive enough, isn't it? Rothorpe (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK by me.
Thank God her first name's not Gillian (which can have either pron). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 03:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
But IPA appears to be standard across Wikipedia. Should we really just go our own way on this?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
IPA is ridiculous clutter that hardly any reader understands. I certainly don't understand it. Do you? Perhaps you could give us a run-down. Tony (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. Hold your mouse cursor over each character. End of.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
What's the value of IPA over something simpler? No one understands what on earth it means anyway, and readers shouldn't have to figure out that they have to hold their cursor over something that should be clear at first glance. Frickeg (talk) 11:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Pronunciation. This discussion should be moved there if you want to continue.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Either the article should have a pronunciation guide according to the MoS, or it shouldn't have one - not a new type of pronunciation guide that we make up specifically for this article. Wittylama 05:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the correct MOS link is to the dedicated MOS page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation (or WP:PRON): not Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Pronunciation, which is just a quick mention at WP:MOS with a link to WP:PRON. There we find this solution:

For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as proh-NUN-see-AY-shən (using {{respell}}) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA ({{IPA-en}} or {{IPAc-en}}). Any transcription, whatever system is used, should link to an explanation of the symbols, which are not universally understood. US dictionary-style transcriptions such as prō·nŭn′·sē·ā′·shən (using {{USdict}}) are a possible alternative to pronunciation respellings, but are only widely understood in North America.

There you go. A simple and accurate IPA transcription, with a gloss that uses US conventions from well-known US dictionaries. I have most of those to hand, so I can check the result of using the relevant template. Would people like me to take care of the matter, when I have time? (US English is the proper sort to use in such a gloss, because it is US politicians and diplomats who are notorious for getting Gillard's name wrong: "gillARD" (from Hillary Clinton!) and "JILLard".
♫♪
NoeticaTea? 06:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Interested to see what you come up with, Noetica. Tony (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, do go ahead. I remember Boehner defying all expectations and logic by managing to mispronounce Julia as well (juLEEa gillARD), but I think we can safely say that's a bit of an outlier. Frickeg (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Currently, the "Early life and career" starts with "Gillard (first syllable stressed, hard G) was born ...". Surely this does not comply with WP:PRON#Placement? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of monarch and governor-general in infobox

I removed the monarch and Governor-General from the infobox, but MelbourneStar disagrees and reverted. Do we have any specific guidelines as to when the monarch and GG should be included? In particular why do we include them for the Prime Minister but not for a Member of Parliament (example)? Perhaps the template should have better guidelines as to when each parameter should be added? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Monarch and GG provide historical context. We include her deputy, why not include her "bosses"? --Surturz (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it provides completeness. (Although I doubt if Gillard would agree with the term "bosses" ;-) ) HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
"Historical", huh? Given the Australian Constitution doesn't make a direct reference to the office of Prime Minister, but does directly reference the monarch and her representative in Australia, I don't see how this can be seen as "historical". Perhaps when Australia becomes a republic then you can play these sort games, but at the moment it is extremely relevant. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Does anyone else think the template guidelines should mention this? (Template_talk:Infobox officeholder#Guidelines for when to include each parameter) Mitch Ames (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTBURO, I think it best to leave it to the editors of each article to decide. --Surturz (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, sorry Mitch, but I do stick to my word, and I believe Surturz has best outlined the fact, that "We include her deputy, why not include her "bosses"?". Besides, isn't GG the head of state for Australia? the equivelant of a President? if not discard my latter question. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 10:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Depends on how you define the role of President. In the U.S. sense, then no the GG is not equivalent. However, the Australian Constitution confers a large amount of power on the GG, and in fact on many occasions the GG has dissolved parliament (and in fact refused to dissolve Parliament!). So it is most definitely pertinent to include this information.
incidentally, the GG is the monarchs representative in Australia, while the PM heads the Executive. - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

AWU Scandal

Propose New Section on Gillard's Professional and Personal Involvement with Wilson

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-skeletons-are-rattling/story-e6frfifx-1226407042965 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/cops-wanted-julia-gillards-ex-bruce-wilson-charged/story-fn6tcs23-1226442634336 http://www.news.com.au/national/julia-gillards-ex-boyfriend-bruce-wilson-faced-police-investigation/story-fndo4eg9-1226442710409 Gillard's involvement in this scandal is certainly note-worthy, and as it has been started to be extensively covered in the news media of late, MUST be included in any encyclopedic account of Julia GillardDickmojo (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should be done, but carefully. Perhaps we should start by stating a list of open questions on this matter that the PM has refused to answer. Freebird15 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunate choice of sources. All three are News Ltd/Murdoch. Two of them require me to sign up to read them. I have no intention of giving my personal details to Rupert. The third says nothing concrete. If you really want to discuss this matter constructively here, you will need to find some more public, freely available sources. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The first "source" is an Andrew Bolt column, hardly an impartial observer [4]. --Canley (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We use commercial sources such as books or magazines all the time. Just because an editor has not bought a copy of a book does not make that book invisible and out of reach to Wikipedia. Besides, there are legitimate ways of getting around paywalls. --Pete (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the paywalls don't necessarily mean we can't use the sources. Bolt, though, is not an appropriate source, and some non-Murdoch stuff would be nice. Either way, I'm not convinced of the relevance of this - it seems pretty tabloidy, and probably not appropriate for Gillard's entry. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest she was involved. Frickeg (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Y'all missed my point about the sources. My point was that it was impossible for ME (and perhaps others) to discuss this matter HERE, because of the nature of the listed sources. I hadn't even noticed that one of them was Bolt. That seals it. No way! HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a very old story - I'm surprised to see it surface again. The media pretty much dropped it some time ago, as there was no evidence that Gillard had done anything improper. From our perspective, the only thing we could say is that she had poor chice in boyfriends at some point in the past, but until there is something concrete that links Gillard to any wrongdoing there isn't any real cause to add it here. - Bilby (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I said as much earlier, but lost it in an edit conflict and didn't catch it. Without something really solid, we can't use it. Jula says she had no involvement and unless something comes up showing she did, we can't use it. Poor choice in boyfriends, maybe, but is that notable? No. --Pete (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all - glad to see some discussion going on this. I disagree that Andrew Bolt can't be used as a source where he is stating facts: Not because I think he's charming but because his newspaper would pay lawyers to check his every word to ensure that they don't get sued. Where he or anyone else just offers opinion, I agree that that would not belong in someone's biography.

--124.169.223.8 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Wrong. Bolt 'slams' half caste aboriginals for 'putting on aboriginality'. Loses court case. Where were the lawyers? This is NewsCorp, as in 'NewsOfTheWorldCorp', nope no lawyer there either.

For those who think this is old news or a beat up, here is some background information: http://pickeringpost.com While the content of Pickering's newspaper may or may not qualify as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia purposes, it does suggest areas for further enquiry.

What can we say for certain? For starters I suggest: 1. Julia Gillard says she was "young and naive" when we know she was well into her 30s and a partner in a law firm. 2. Julia Gillard lets it known that she left her job in the firm to pursue a career in politics (working for John Brumby) - but there was a 6 month gap in between where she did not have a job. She doesn't mention it and doesn't explain it. 3. Gillard along with everyone else agrees that a large amount of money was stolen, but she has not called for AWU to release the documents that would provide police with evidence to charge the crooks. 4. Gillard maintains that she's dealt with all this in the past but I defy anyone to find transcripts of an interview in which she was confronted with detailed questions Freebird15 (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Including ancient, slanderous and never-substantiated rumors about Gillard would violate the core policies WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If you want to publish something like this on your own blog/website, go off and do so (but I'd suggest that you engage the services of a good defamation lawyer first), but it's not going to be permitted here for the reasons explained by other editors above. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Nick-D, perhaps you regard the events of 17 years ago as ancient but you might acknowledge that many older people do not share this view. Of course slanderous allegations should not be published anywhere: Could you be specific in what claims I have made that cannot be verified? Freebird15 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Nick-D on this. We can't include negative poorly sourced material, and we are not going to speculate on what Gillard might have done in a missing six months. Or anybody, really. --Pete (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, well let's start small: Does anyone have a problem with the biography stating that Gillard was a partner at Slater and Gordon's, and that she started working for John Brumby six months after she finished up there? Freebird15 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a six month period in my history that I never mention on my professional resume. Want to speculate on what evil deeds I did in that period? No? Is that because I'm not Prime Minister? Stop wasting your time and ours, and drop it now. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48: Did you say "drop it now?" I'm asking for undisputed facts to be inserted an autobiography but you and the others seem to be trying to shut down the conversation. I have never encountered this level of bias in an internet forum. How very interesting. Freebird15 (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with properly sourced and relevant facts inserted into a BLP. Gillard's early career is as relevant to her later one as any other PM. Ben Chifley's train-drivin' days, for example. But this isn't a personal vote or consensus thing. It's a matter of wiki policy. Freebird, please don't attack other editors for merely playing by the rules. --Pete (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a misunderstanding, I don't mean to attack anyone. I would like to withdraw everything I've said and start again with a much simpler proposal (see following). Freebird15 (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that I came to this article looking for some reliable information about this affair. It's now news. Surely something should be in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.107.139 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
In principle, one could ask the Prime Minister about those 6 months or otherwise do ones own investigations, but it would still be primary research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. My understanding is without a previously published and verifiable source to reference, it has no place on this page in any form. 14.2.40.212 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

When did Gillard start working for John Brumby?

Like my fellow editors I am keen that the Wikipedia article is as accurate as possible.

Are we all agreed that Gillard was appointed to her job with John Brumby in May 1996?

I have found many references to this date and none to any other.

I would like to amend the article accordingly. Freebird15 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that, as long as you stick to neutral sources, and there do seem to be several (regarding the use of Bolt, et al, discussed above—I don't think a blanket ban on referencing factual material from opinion columnists is necessary, but in this case Bolt, Smith, Milne and Pickering have become part of the story so citing their assertions as references would be inappropriate I think). There is a biography on the website of the Commonwealth Secretariat which gives the date Gillard started as Brumby's Chief-of-Staff as specifically as "May 1996", for example [5]. There is a conflicting reference that I found, in the Parliamentary Handbook: Gillard's biography says: Chief of Staff to the Victorian Leader of the Opposition, J Brumby, MLA, 1995-98. This date has been in the Handbook for at least ten years. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There's something called an "Official Biography" on the ALP's website. It's written in the first person, as if by Julia herself. It tells us "From 1996 to 1998, I served as Chief-of-Staff to the then Opposition Leader of the State of Victoria, John Brumby." No month is given. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for those references, I have also found conflicting reports of when she started. Perhaps someone could inform us what is the official Wikipedia way of dealing with conflicting reports from apparently reliable sources? I guess I am inclined to trust the May 96 date because Rob Hulls was supposed to have occupied the job until at least March 1996. How do we deal with the 1995 date from the Parliamentary Handbook? Freebird15 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Three excellent sources, one in conflict with the others. I'd go with the majority here, especially the one that gives an exact date. My guess is that she began working in Brumby's office in 1995 and took over as CoS in May 96, but that's only surmise. --Pete (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"My guess is that she began working in Brumby's office in 1995 and took over as CoS in May 96"~ Pure Speculation! There is no hard evidence to indicate that is the case. A more impartial reading of the evidence is to conclude that someone is lying. Hrmmm, who has a well-documented penchant for telling lies?? So much so that her First Name often has an "R" cheekily added to the end of it to denote what the public's perception of her honesty is??? Let me see.... Dickmojo (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that totally objective perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

s

I detect sarcasm, HiLo48... Are you trying to imply that it ISN'T objective to conclude in this case that the most likely cause of the discrepancy is that someone has lied? Or are you implying that it isn't objective to leap to a conclusion as to who the liar may be? Dickmojo (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Your conclusion is irrelevant, since we don't do speculation here. I was simply commenting on your obviously non-neutral perspective. Once you have chosen to make such a position public, your credibility as contributor here is weakened. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
That would likely include all of us, as we are forced to make decisions and opinions on political statements merely by editing these articles. Probably best to keep the discussion on the article rather than the editor. Given the front page story in today's Australian, we need to keep an eye on the circumstances of Gillard's employment and its termination. [6] --Pete (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be even better to avoid posts accusing any politician of having "a well-documented penchant for telling lies". Such a post shows a blatant non-neutral POV and is not going to enhance discussion. As for your link to The Australian, the two sentences I can read without giving my personal details to Rupert show a typical Murdoch anti-Gillard slant. No facts are visible. Since it's no longer an open source, you'll need to stop using The Australian as a basis for open discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a subscriber and I could read the whole thing. You might need to tweak your setup. As previously pointed out, the fact that reference books cost money doesn't prevent us from using them as sources. Go along to your local library if you want to read today's paper, whatever. Gillard's involvement is not non-trivial. I haven't seen anything but speculation as to whether she was involved in any wrong-doing (I personally don't think she was) but still something was going on that wasn't above-board and we should keep our eyes open. Not close them. As for accusing politicians of telling lies, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Please. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
How the hell can I have a conversation with you when you largely ignore or misinterpret what I write? (It really makes me wonder about how you form your opinions on anything.) The fact that you can read the article doesn't mean I can. I hope you're not suggesting that I'm lying! In addition, I made no comment on using the Australian as a source. Of course that can be acceptable. My point was that it's obviously not easily available to all editors, so there's no point trying to use it as a basis for discussion here right now. Please read more carefully in future. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you follow your own advice. I suggested that you tweak your setup or read the paper in the public library. Or, heaven forbid, go out and buy a copy. If you don't want to read the article, that's fine - we'll talk about it amongst ourselves and may or may not use it as a source. I don't think we need to say anything, just yet, but I think we should keep our eyes open. Other opinions on the material seem to differ. Please respect that different editors may have different opinions and we work on consensus. --Pete (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course we have different fucking opinions. The trouble is, your opinion of Gillard is obvious, and is influencing everything you do here. And you don't actually know what mine is, no matter what you might think. (Don't bother trying to guess.) Can you see the difference? Please stop using this place as a soapbox. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Different opinions on the article's subject don't matter - we do things politely and with consensus, and it works out just fine. Did you take in what I wrote above? I sent you a link to a copy of the article, which looks like a straight cut and paste job. Any comments welcomed. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a guess is, by definition, speculation. Well spotted! Doesn't really matter - we have three good sources for the information, any one of which is fine to support a statement in the article. Not a hugely notable statement, however. --Pete (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This link from today's Oz highlights key dates related to her employment with Slater and Gordon in chronological order: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-political-controversy-that-wont-go-away/story-fn59niix-1226452912534. Presumably the paper's lawyers went over it with a fine tooth comb. I am a Wikipedia newcomer so I don't have the right to edit this article, but maybe someone else can? Freebird15 (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a good chance you are now "autoconfirmed", and can edit the article. Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC).
I'm not quite sure what is valuable in the article, though. In terms of a timeline it says that Gillard started work with Slater & Gordon in 1987, and that she was promoted in 1990. It also says that she left in October 1995, and started work with Brumby in mid-1996. Is this particularly valuable, though? We already cover most of that in the article. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Rich for the head's up: you're right I've been auto-confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freebird15 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The Australian Newspaper is the most prestigious and premier print news source in the entire country. Jimbo Wales himself is on record as saying that Mainstream Media Sources *and he specifically included Murdoch-owned MSM sources* are excellent sources for evidence on Wikipedia. Now, I find it the height of ridiculous-ness for someone who is apparently so biased against News Ltd and Rupert Murdoch that they just want to close their eyes and yell "LA LA LA" to any evidence emanating from these sources, to accuse ME of being NPOV! I mean, opposing News Ltd. is basically a caricature of typical far-left extremism in this day and age. That this scandal of Gillard's past is being exposed in the News Ltd. media makes it even MORE essential that it be included in Wikipedia, as News Ltd. is THE most important and credible MSM source in Australia. Dickmojo (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoopee! I'm a ridiculous, biased, typical far left extremist! Whoohoo! Silly post. HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What's silly is your bias against "the Murdoch press". The rules of Wikipedia state that they are acceptable sources. Not just acceptable, preferable. Dickmojo (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent on-the record statements regarding Gillard's departure from Slater and Gordon

Hi All,

First I must apologise for accidently deleting the following section when I inserted my section:

In 1987, Gillard joined the law firm Slater & Gordon at Werribee, Melbourne, working in industrial law.[1] In 1990, at the age of 29, she was admitted as a partner.[2]

(My text was to come after it).

Now Bilby - you reverted my edit and said the matter was being discussed in talk. Would you like to explain please? I've done my best to follow all the rules of Wikipedia - these are clearly items of interest to anyone who is interested in Julia Gillard's biography and they are well sourced. Could you explain your edit please? Freebird15 (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we are going to include content stating that the current Prime Minister had been fired from a previous position due to the possibility of benefiting from stolen money, then we had better have consensus before we add it, and make sure that both sides are covered. You edit covered one side, and was made in spite of the ongoing and rather intense discussion above. Let's seek consensus on what to add prior to dropping it into the article. (Being bold is fine - but having been bold, we need to return to discussion). - Bilby (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bilby - Could you put into words what this "other side" is? Freebird15 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Little things. Like Gillard denying any wrongdoing, or that she was asked to leave. Or providing receipts showing that she paid for everything.
Fundamentally, The Australian is reporting on claims made by a third party. At the moment, that's all they are - claims made by another person, that haven't been tested, and that have been consistently denied by Gillard. We can't then add them into the article as if they are factual statements. At any rate, seek consensus first. When consensus is to add it into the article, we'll be able to do so. - Bilby (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The other side is one where you don't speculate. Was she really unemployed for the period you specified? You don't use the sort of language designed to implicate without real evidence, such as "she could not categorically rule out...". We write what we definitely DO know. We don't go beyond that. And in the current political climate, we need to be very careful about sourcing. Because of the obvious campaign against her government currently underway by the Murdoch press, getting material from other, non-Murdoch sources is critical. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry HiLo48, but this biased POV of your's against "the Murdoch press" is totally counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales himself states that Mainstream Media sources such as News Ltd. are excellent sources for wikipedia articles to use as sources. On the one hand, you say that we shouldn't "speculate", and then you go on to speculate that "the Murdoch press" is pursuing a "campaign against (the) government". No its not! That is pure speculation on your behalf. Now, as "the Murdoch press" currently includes 70% of the Mainstream print media in Australia, any topic which is pursued by them MUST be included in wikipedia as a matter of public interest. Mainstream media sources are THE most appropriate sources, HiLo48, and your campaign to exclude 70% of the best sources available to us because of your obvious political bias is unbecoming of a NPOV editor Dickmojo (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Expressions like "your obvious political bias" and "unbecoming of a NPOV editor" are personal attacks. I can deal with it, but you should not be doing it. While all of us and all media have their biases, that currently being displayed against Labor and the Greens by the Murdoch press is so bloody obvious and extreme that for you to deny its existence is very silly and unhelpful. As for my opinion on Gillard et al, you have no fucking idea. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bilby; we shouldn't be adding vauge gossip and unsubstantiated allegations to the article per WP:BLP. In regards to The Australian, I think that it's generally agreed among people with an interest in Australian politics that its greatly biased against the ALP and (to a greater extent), the Greens and its reportage needs to be treated with caution as a result. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what people with an interest in Australian politics think, the fact is that Mainstream Media sources are acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. Not just acceptable, preferable, because if a topic is garnering coverage in the MSM, yet not covered in Wikipedia, there is a coverage gap here that is not desirable. Now, the Australian is the most Mainstream print media source in Australia. There are NO grounds for ignoring it as a highly credible source, despite what you might or not not SPECULATE about its neutrality. (For the record, I personally think its editor at large Paul Kelly, and a number of its regular columnists like Peter van Oneselon, are HIGHLY biased towards Labor and against the Coalition, but that is balanced out by a few pro-Liberal columnists like Henry Ergas and Janet Albrechtson, so that overall, the Australian is probably the most balanced Media source in Australia, as opposed to Fairfax and the ABC whom have exclusively only leftists on their staff). I propose we restore Freebirds' edits, because this is a hot topic right now and needs to be covered in some way by wikipedia. If Gillard wants to come out and set the record straight, more the better. But the fact that she refuses to is not grounds for us to ignore the topic totally.Dickmojo (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in The Australian's article we need to cover. I didn't see that she had been sacked or dismissed, for example, merely that's he had resigned. We can read between the lines all we want, but there's very little about Julia Gillard that's at all solid. Or notable.
I cannot see that The Australian is anti-ALP so much as supplying the same criticism of this government that it has aimed at any other government. One of the roles of the media, and one of the things that sells papers, is examining government misdeeds. Or those of any other party. Anybody here feels that Julia Gillard and her government is above criticism? --Pete (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
There you go again Dickmojo. Ignoring all that bullshit you wrote about The Australian, as soon as you use expressions like "come out and set the record straight" and "the fact that she refuses to" about Gillard you show that your mind is already made up. And that pretty much removes you from the list of helpfully objective editors here. Please take your prejudice elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48 - I find your manner unnecessarily aggressive. I do not find Dickmojo's comments prejudiced. Freebird15 (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should check the meaning of prejudiced. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless implying that a fellow editor should take themselves elsewhere seems aggressive to me. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bilby: Re: Seek consensus first. Are you sure that this is the right way to go? That would imply that a person's reputation on Wikipedia will be driven by the consensus view of a half-dozen people who happen to be taking an interest at any particular time. Regarding your point about Gillard denying any wrongdoing: Where has she denied that she was sacked? Where does she deny that she was dating a client? Or any of the other things that I mentioned? I can't find this anywhere. A bland statement that "I didn't do anything wrong" is not a rebuttal. Freebird15 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you denied that you beat your wife? HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
If I were a man who was married and the front page of the Australian reported that I was a wife-beater I would deny it and call a lawyer. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Nick-D: I agree that we shouldn't adding vague gossip and unsubstantiated allegations, but here is a well-known newspaper making very specific claims that would see them incur substantial penalties if they could not back those claims up in court. On the other hand, perhaps we could change what I wrote so that it didn't report it as fact but said that "A partner in the law firm (insert name) made a statement that ... and so far there have been no specific denials. Could we build a consensus around that? Freebird15 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The first bit could be OK, but why did you add the bit about no denials? That's pushing a particular line. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
OK - I see your point - I wouldn't mind if "no denails" was removed. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A general comment: Could we have some more links to external references showing verifiable alternative evidence on this matter? We all agree that Wikipedia is no place for speculation but we seem to have a shortage of evidence in support of Gillard. Freebird15 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point. It's not our job to find evidence for AND against someone. We report what reliable sources tell us. And that has to be more than just The Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The Australian is fine as a source. I just don't think there's anything in this particular article that we can use. Freebird, what specific statements are you basing your edits on? --Pete (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pete, every one of my claims is taken directly from the sources quoted. I change a few words to provide context. I will find the exact quotes if you really need me to. Freebird15 (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Do that, please, and then consider whether you've uncovered anything concrete that we can include. At the moment I'm inclined to remove any repetition of your edit. --Pete (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pete - I'll just do the first one because I've already spent a lot of time providing detailed and precise references in the article and I feel other editors should make some effort to read what I've provided or provide references of their own. OK, so here's the first one: I wrote

"In August or September 1995 her employer started an investigation into reports that her client/boyfriend, Bruce Wilson, had been misappropriating large sums of money from the firm's client, the Australian Workers' Union."

The corresponding section of the Australian reads:

"AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1995: Gillard's law partners at Slater & Gordon become concerned that her client is accused of misappropriating significant sums of money. The partners start a secret internal investigation. Gillard ends her relationship with Wilson."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-political-controversy-that-wont-go-away/story-fn59niix-1226452912534

Freebird15 (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

So we have a report of a report of a suspicion. Any charges laid? Any official report? And did Gillard know anything about this? There's nothing we can really hang a statement on, is there? And, I'm guessing here, but the fact that the relationship ended at this point I read as that she dropped him when she learned about his (possible) misdeeds. --Pete (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to step back a bit. In The Australian, as linked to above, it states that in 1995 "Gillard, who was an ALP Senate candidate, tells The Australian at the time: 'Whether or not Mr Wilson was a client of mine is irrelevant. Each and every allegation raised about me is absolutely untrue; there is not a shred of truth in any of it.'" So in regard to her denying the claims, her denials go back to 1995. The second article states:
"Ms Gillard has repeatedly and strenuously denied that she had any knowledge of what the association that she had set up was going to be used for. She has also denied receiving any benefit from the funds. She has repeatedly rejected claims made in parliament that renovations to her own house in Melbourne in the early-to-mid 1990s were part-funded by money allegedly siphoned off by Mr Wilson. "
So I think we can be reasonably certain that Gillard has not been failing to respond to the claims, and that she has consistently denied them over many years. I'm surprised that those statements were missed, given that they were prominent in the two sources being used.
More importantly, though, The Australian is being very careful in its wording. They are not saying these things happened. What they are saying is that Styant-Browne claimed that they happened in a two-page letter suppied to The Australian. For our purposes this is a serious distinction. We can't repeat as fact something that is simply an unsupported and untested allegation which is being denied by the subject, and we couldn't do that on any BLP.
The problem for me is not that it was reported in The Australian, or that The Australian can't be taken as a reliable source. Just that it is only a reliable source for the saying that Styant-Browne has described these events thus, rather than that these events happened. We need to wait and see if more substantial information surfaces before running with it, and we can't treat it as a factual claim. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bilby - Thanks for your quotes, where Gillard directly refutes claims made by my edit I think that should be noted and the reference included. Your suggestion that the Australian is merely quoting claims made by Styant-Browne I think is demonstrably false. The front page of the Australian shouts, "Gillard lost her job after law firm's secret investigation." It does not say, "Gillard accused of losing her job after... etc" The text of the article (which I've ref'd already) makes the same claim. Freebird15 (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The article is very clear that the claims are based on the testimony of Nick Styant-Browne, and it repeatedly highlights this. I'm not sure quite why you would see it differently. - Bilby (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
" We report what reliable sources tell us. And that has to be more than just The Australian"~ Rubbish HiLo48, "reliable sources" do NOT have to be "more than just The Australian", and any assertion that they do is far-left extremist anti-Murdoch hysteria. Regardless, there are further references to this scandal, indeed it has been referred to in Parliament itself by former attorney-General Robert McClelland: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc3691419-911e-4e11-b6bf-09c7da360bc2%2F0070;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fc3691419-911e-4e11-b6bf-09c7da360bc2%2F0000%22 Dickmojo (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
"So I think we can be reasonably certain that Gillard has not been failing to respond to the claims, and that she has consistently denied them over many years." Gillard has not denied that she was intimately and professionally involved with Union fraudster Bruce Wilson. She has admitted she was, has gone so far as to describe her self as being "young and naive" because of her association, and this association therefore, as a matter of public record, ought to be made note of in Wikipedia. Dickmojo (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Another non-News Ltd source about the scandal, this one from Macquarie Radio: http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=13864 Dickmojo (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that we could legitimately report that as a young woman, Ms Gillard was young and naïve, and made a poor relationship choicer. We could probably say this for a majority of the population. Whooptedoo! --Pete (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
More than that, Pete. We can legitimately report that Ms Gillard was <BLP violation redacted> Dickmojo (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear. No, we can't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we can, they are the undisputed facts of the matter. And not only we can, we SHOULD, because now that this scandal has appeared on the front page of the Weekend Australian, to not report on it would be a dereliction of our duty as editors. The Australian is the only National Broadsheet newspaper in circulation in Australia. It is the most important and prestigious news publication in the nation. The Weekend Australian, further, is the most important and circulated edition of the Australian. The national significance of a front page story in the Weekend Australian can not be over estimated. Stop trying to bury this story to protect your darling and come to some consensus on how we may appropriately include this scandal in this wikipedia article, because included it MUST BE. Dickmojo (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
C'mon everybody - A major newspaper makes detailed and important allegations about the subject of this Wikipedia article, and we can't work together to use ANY of it? Freebird15 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
"Undisputed facts", "detailed and important allegations"? Seriously? Not one of these stands up to scrutiny: (a) Was the so-called "fraudster" concerned convicted or even charged with these allegations? (b) No one is seriously making any allegations of wrong-doing against Gillard—not even The Australian, who seem to be dancing around several rumours and linking several events together in a chronology which implies some kind of wrong-doing if you fill in the blanks (which is what seems to be happening here), but they seem to be very careful not to make any specific allegations. (c) Referring to the relationship as a "common law marriage" is a real stretch, and one I don't think you'll find in any reference. That Gillard owned her own house in Abbotsford seems to show that there was not any kind of long-term de facto domestic arrangement. (d) Did either McClelland or Gillard ever represent parts of the AWU in "court cases"? I don't think so—several news articles mention that McClelland and Gillard provided their respective clients with [written] "legal advice". Also, there is no conflict of interest: McClelland and his firm (Turner Freeman) represented two AWU officials (Ludwig and Cambridge) as individuals, not the union itself. And absolutely no evidence that McClelland's removal from cabinet was in any way related to this case. (e) Nowhere does it say that Gillard was "fired" from S&G, in fact the article in The Australian clearly says that she left due to what she saw as "shabby treatment" by the firm. That Wikipedia editors should leap to conclusions and draw tenuous inferences from a series of ancient, unsubstantiated rumours, when even the media outlet publishing them won't go there, is ridiculous. --Canley (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Important and detailed accusations are placed on the front page of a major Australian newspaper, but you won't read about it here. Now don't worry, don't fret, instead just check out these amazing revelations by those fearless editors on Wikipedia!

You get all the facts you need to know about the Prime Minister, including:

  • The place her parents live.
  • The time of day at which the previous Prime Minister announced he would be standing down.
  • The date she moved into the the Prime Minister's house.
  • Bill Shorten's opinion of Kevin Rudd.
  • How some journalist rates her debating style.
  • The fact that she was asked a question by Mark Latham.
  • Who she cheers for when she watches football.

We, the editors of Wikipedia, have changed the world forever!

Hugs all round!

Freebird15 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Freebird, you have acutely captured the inanity of our fellow editors' position on this issue. Wikipedia articles are purposed to be biographical of notaries' lives. When aspects of an article-subject's biography are splashed across the front page of the National Newspaper, it would be remiss of us not to detail a summary of said information in this article. Now, I propose that the gravity of these allegations warrants a separate section all together, entitled "Bruce Wilson AWU Fraud Scandal" or something like that, in which we neutrally outline the known facts of the matter, <BLP violation redacted>. Such a summary is irrefutably factual, and can be sourced using the sources I and others have linked to on this page. Can we please come to an agreement now to effect such an edit to the article and move forward with full consensus? Dickmojo (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
We seem to broadly agree Dickmojo, though I would be willing to tone down some of the claims just to get it past this brood of pecking chickens. Freebird15 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It's an interesting article, but really has nothing much that we can use. I think we should keep an eye on the matter as it looks to be developing. If one of the major players cracks, we could see Gillard dumped right into the poo. What you can do right now, if you think you are being needlessly squelched here, is to take it to WP:BLPN, where a wider circle of editors will take a look at it. --Pete (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I looked it up, Pete, and found that WP:BLPN is generally used for stopping defamatory statements: not to help a bunch of kindergarten kids who are not able to work together to produce an article that is factual and relevant. Freebird15 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Getting a wider circle of editors to look at it would certainly help us reach consensus on how to include these aspects of Gillard's biography into the article. I've put in a request over there for someone to come and take a look at this page to help give us some input on reaching a consensus on how to include these facts into the article. Dickmojo (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's another article on the subject, from Bolt again. NB, just because a lot of lefties consider Andrew Bolt to be biased doesn't invalidate his writings as a source for WP articles. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillard_responds/ Dickmojo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Am I the only person who's suspicious about this being so enthusiastically pushed by a single purpose account (Freebird15)? These claims have been hanging around for years, Gillard has denied them and nothing has ever come of it. They popped up briefly in the media last year and were rapidly withdrawn by The Australian and Herald Sun after Gillard threatened legal action (if I'm not mistaken, some of the claims in question are being repeated above, which is highly concerning). The Australian and Herald Sun seems to be giving them another push, and this hasn't been picked up by the wider media. There is no 'scandal', or anything which warrants including in the article per WP:BLP. Grotty rumours and dubious allegations are regularly pushed by the enemies of most senior politicians (which I won't repeat here for obvious reasons) and we rightly don't include them in their articles. The fact that right wing blogger Andrew Bolt is being offered as a reliable source on this matter says it all really: he's not a reliable source on anything. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
What makes me suspicious is the culture of intimidation that is being propagated to shut down all discussion on this matter. Larry Pickering, a journalist who has been trying to pursue the issue, has been (quote) "pickeringpost.com has been consistently attacked via a DDoS for the past few days. We are now getting a "suspended" notice." ever since this report emerged: http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/blog-with-derryn-hinch/gillard-and-the-awu-scandal-larry-pickering-forecasts-the-pms-demise/20120814-246gn.html
Regarding Andrew Bolt, as a mainstream journalist in the Mainstream Media, he is a perfectly acceptable source of information for Wikipedia. Just because you assert that "he's not a reliable source on anything" does not make it so. I assert that he is a reliable source, and a dare you to prove otherwise. Dickmojo (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Further, Nick D, your claims that, because this scandal has been hinted at for years, but nothing (yet) has been taken up in earnest by the media, then its nothing at all, is wrong. One could have said the same thing about Craig Thomson's fraud scandal... up until this time last year, it was a background issue not taken up by the media at all except for one SMH article and a lone talk radio journalist. Indeed, the Gillard tried to shut down all discussion on that issue as well, just like she is trying to do with this scandal. Dickmojo (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Please drop the conspiracy theories. Bolt is a writer of opinion articles in newspapers and runs a highly opinionated blog, neither of which qualify as reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. First, The Australian is a perfectly acceptable source. Whatever biases that individuals ascribe to various news sources is irrelevant to whether they are acceptable as reliable sources. We need to just put that whole argument to one side because "the Murdoch press" is used extensively across the project to verify claims. Continuing to press objections to certain outlets only distracts from the real argument.

The relevance of this story to an article about Gillard is the true point. I've been reading this discussion from the beginning, but I've yet to see a single compelling argument for including what amount to innuendos. No one is actually alleging that Gillard did anything wrong, and certainly isn't presenting evidence. So what is the point of talking about when she went to work for one employer or how her employment ended with another? Presenting that without explaining why she left the firm serves only to imply she did something wrong. Aside from the fact that doing so would be ethically dubious, BLP tells us we cannot do that.

Finally, tossing about allegations of intimidation is completely unacceptable. If you really feel you are being intimidated, reported it. But as far as I can see not one thing that has been said could be interpreted as intimidating. If you think disagreeing with you is an intimidation tactic, then you should reconsider whether your personality is sufficiently suited for participating at Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We finally have another reliable source reporting independently on this matter. From The Age we have "SLATER and Gordon...yesterday revealed that an internal inquiry had found nothing against her over a scandal involving her former boyfriend, Bruce Wilson." There is no story. Let's drop this nonsense completely now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No, we are at the same stage as yesterday. The story in The Australian had nothing of substance, nor does this one in The Age. But we don't know what's going to come up in tomorrow's headlines. With Gillard, things have a way of blowing up suddenly. That Australia Day riot thing, for example. We stick with the way Wikipedia works on BLP, thank you. Actually, there is one interesting bit of information in the article, in that she is reported to have resigned to fight a Senate campaign. How come we didn't have this in our article? --Pete (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
And there's some more of your personal opinion about Gillard. Please stop it. Your political commentary is unhelpful, and only encourages those obsessed newcomers above to take it further. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
With Wikipedia shedding editors by the trainload, we don't want to discourage volunteer workers. As ever, it's a matter of sticking to Wikipedia rules, unless you think that individual editors have leave to get around such fundamentals as BLP. With enough eyes on this article, we'll keep things as they should be. With Gillard - or anyone else - we can never rule out new material being presented for inclusion in WP. Often as part of a breaking story.
Actually, it says she took a leave of absence for the Senate election and that she resigned effective 3 May 1996 to work for Brumby. -Rrius (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
So it does. Whatever, there's really nothing untoward about Gillard leaving the law firm and the supposed six months unemployed. I'll bet she was flat out doing political work for the ALP in that "unemployment". The fact that she was given the winnable third spot on the ticket shows how much she was valued at that time. --Pete (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
And again, your personal thoughts on Gillard add nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is that earlier in this thread a new editor suggested there was something fishy about Gillard taking six months off work. I'm saying there wasn't. Because she was working on a Senate campaign. Are you disagreeing on this point? --Pete (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Unlike you, I won't speculate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a damned good thing no one asked you to, then. Pete isn't suggesting we put his speculation in the article; rather, he is pointing out that the information some thought meant Gillard just had to have done something wrong actually seems to point to something more innocuous. -Rrius (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me respond to Nick-D's statement above that he is "suspicious about this being so enthusiastically pushed by a single purpose account" (mine).

First of all let me say I am not alone and give credit to Dickmojo for also trying to get this issue discussed.

Secondly let me explain that I have set up a Wikipedia account just for this purpose because in the past I felt that the anonymous editing-by-anyone on Wikipedia produces weak articles (see "hugs all round" above), but that nevertheless this issue was too important to ignore. Specifically I felt people like Michael Smith were brave and true Australians and their voices deserved to be better heard.

Of course the reason for my bringing it up has now paled into insignficance, all the major players are now reporting on this issue:

I could go on, but I'll leave you with a link to an ABC discussion show in which Barry Cassidy (a TV journalist with over 40 years experience) can't discuss this issue without multiple nervous stammers. Hilarious!

Freebird15 (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the matter up. If there were any substance to the allegations, we could use the material in our article. As it turns out, Gillard doesn't seem to have anything much to explain beyond making a poor choice of lover, and haven't we all done that once or twice? For allegations like this, we can't state them as fact without something a lot stronger to base them on. This applies to every living subject of a Wikipedia article, in line with the WP:BLP rules, which have been in place for some years and have wide support amongst editors.
You have done exactly the right thing in bringing the matter here for discussion. --Pete (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet another slant on the matter: SMH: Larry Pickering - the conman stalking Gillard. WWGB (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link WWGB: Glad to see someone contributing! A large part of this article talks about Larry Pickering though I don't know if that's relevant. The article does talk about Gillard, but only to voice the opinion that the Prime Minister was guilty of a "dire failure" by not backing a report into union corruption with a statement that she would clean up the unions. Freebird15 (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. You really are desperate, aren't you? There's NOTHING there!!!! (Well, apart from malicious behaviour from a corrupt con-man.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
HiLo48: If you're saying there's nothing in the article offered by WWGB that can be used because it's all opinion: I agree with you, but didn't want to say it in those terms because it seems like a mean way to talk to WWGB whom I've just met; also I like the fact that he's actually putting stuff up not just making comments about other peoples' efforts. Regarding your last comment: are you using Wikipedia to make anonymous claims that a particular person is a con-man? Freebird15 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
WTF? I think you and I must be on different planets. There is no connection between what you're saying and what WWGB and I have posted. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
HiLo, I'm not familiar with all these internet acronyms (I'm getting on in life). What does WTF stand for? Freebird15 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
What The Heck? (Pretty sure it's used just as much outside the Internet as on it.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If you can't keep discussion about the article, rather than attacking other editors and being disruptive, you'll find your conduct the focus of wider attention, HiLo. Is it too much to ask you to be polite, to assume good faith, to be an example of a model editor? Treat other editors with the respect you'd like directed at yourself. Please. --Pete (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Given what Freebird15 is posting, that's very difficult. He is posting absolute nonsense. Can you explain it? Or maybe explain to him what's wrong with it? I saw so much wrong I truly didn't know where to start. And did you see his allegation that I am "using Wikipedia to make anonymous claims that a particular person is a con-man"? Just laughable given the name WWGB gave to the link he posted. I DID laugh out loud. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Best not to bite the newbies or to use the poorest behaviour as an example for everyone else. Look at this discussion - it's gone on for far too long and been needlessly heated because good faith has not been assumed. I can understand the concerns raised about Gillard and her lover and her departure from the law firm, especially where they are being fanned up by some bloggers such as Bolt and Pickering, but when we look at the sources, we find nothing much. This is all pretty straightforward, and instead of calling each other names, we should be referring each other to the appropriate wikipolicy pages. --Pete (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't think Wikipedia has a policy on comprehension, and that seems to be the problem for Freebird15. And that's not intended as an attack. It's description of what I see as a significant problem. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Not intended as an attack? What, because he is unable to comprehend it? Look, Freebird isn't a problem here. I think he raised concerns about Gillard, based on what he read in the papers, and he did so in good faith. Wikipedia can be very daunting for a newcomer, especially with all the jargon we throw around, and our job is to help new editors, not scare them off because we don't like their political opinions. On the subject of comprehension, you yourself admitted that you were unable to understand something I posted yesterday. That's not an attack on you, because what I wrote was a teeny bit opaque, but an observation that if you don't like the way you are treated by others, it might help to look at the way you treat them. I include myself in that, and I'm sorry you were discomforted by my remark, which I thought might raise a snort and chuckle. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it wasn't intended as an attack. We actually have a policy, Wikipedia:Competence is required, which highlights that editors can be defined as incompetent, especially on certain topics, where bias gets completely in the way of rational editing. This editor accused me of making "anonymous claims that a particular person is a con-man", when that was precisely what the author of the referenced article had written, and what WWGB had named his link as. He also seemed to think that the article supported his POV, when it did completely the opposite. Anyway, the whole situation seems to have killed the thread, and I'm happy to see it die. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
HiLo, the reason I think you shouldn't accuse people of being con-men or anything else is because the target of your innuendo has no form of redress. WWGB, on the other hand, just offered a link to an article by Michael Pascoe, and because Michael Pascoe put his real name next to his allegations he allowed a right of reply. Wanna see the reply?. Freebird15 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Freebird - I don't know how to respond to what you're saying. Putting it "politely" is an interesting challenge. You are writing as if you see what happened above completely differently to the way I see it. That makes it impossible for me to have a rational discussion with you on the matter. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

Looking at this edit by HiLo, he says he is reverting unsourced material, but the law firm reference is sourced a few sentences earlier and the fact that she was a Senate candidate is already in Wikipedia, a simple list of candidates that is adequately sourced and uncontroversial. Given that HiLo already posted a link to this material, he must have known that it was factual and sourced. I wonder if he would like to explain his behaviour? --Pete (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. If that truly was a good faith edit, feel free to put it back. The problem is that there's so much bad faith commentary occurring on this Talk page, including by you, that I may have got just a bit too defensive. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wilson Affair

I have started a new article Wilson Affair. I would appreciate contributions from all editors. Please ensure all content is sourced. When we are finished there a summary can be added to this article with a Main Article link. --Surturz (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see the creation of that page in order to sidestep discussion here. As consensus was against including the content here, the creation of a fork to cover that material is not a good approach to the issue. - Bilby (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, I created the article independently. --Surturz (talk) 13:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Does it really need to be in a separate article? I've tagged it for merge here. Lone boatman (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be deleted as a BLP violation for claims against Wilson. Given that Freebird15 has removed the CSD tag, I'll have to look at how best to pursue this. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
This matter is being discussed in the talk page of the article mentioned. Freebird15 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The story has been covered by the Australian media in 2007 ("conman broke my heart"), 2011 (Oz retraction), and 2012 (current coverage). Given this coverage over a five year span (more if you include the 1995 Vic Parliament accusations), I think it deserves its own article. Only a short summary belongs in this BLP. --Surturz (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a legitimate and notable article. The affair has had a long history and continues to attract public comment. More interesting revelations today, including a report that Gillard described what was supposed to be a union workplace training organization as an "election slush fund".[7] Not sure about the name, but as there are several people involved, maybe it could be renamed? --Pete (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree Pete that it should be renamed. It is generally referred to in the media as the AWU scandal which I think is a better name. Freebird15 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this counts as a revelation, given that, as always, it comes down to someone's unsupported allegations. I suspect the issue will die out in a couple more days, as it has in the past. It is pretty much a non-issue in regard to Gillard, and without proof that there was fraud, it is unlikely to ever turn into more. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
If Gillard knew at the time the thing was a union slush fund, as has been reported today, then this thing has got legs. Because of Gillard's fragile position, it will be exploited and become the focus of more public interest. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. But then, it has to be shown that she knew, and the it needs to have an impact. So far neither has occurred. - Bilby (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We have one of the law firm's partners quoting her in an interview which was recorded and transcribed. [8]. --Pete (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that his account has been contradicted by another partner and the firm itself on core issues, it comes down to nothing more than an allegation he's making. That's the problem. Everything comes down to allegations of possible wrongdoing. I'd like to see where this sits in a few days. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there any specific refutation of this allegation? I haven't seen anything apart from general statements. --Pete (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. But as Gillard isn't responding to the allegations, that doesn't mean as much as it might. - Bilby (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Andrew Wilkie is calling for the PM to give a statement to Parliament, so maybe she will clear the thing up. At the moment I'm not seeing any direct refutations of the allegations, only non-specific statements. Bruce Wilson seems to be willing to sell his story, so there might be more revelations from that direction. We should keep our eyes open, but so far I don't see a real lot to worry this article about. A bit of grumbling from her employers. BFD. --Pete (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
A person accused of something by her enemies has no obligation, moral, legal or otherwise to attempt to refute the allegations. The absence of a refutation proves absolutely nothing. Stop drawing conclusions. That's WP:SYNTHESIS HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
...first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. I say again that there is nothing that should go in our article. Yet. This is a story that is developing, and we should keep our eyes open. HiLo, if you paused to take in what other editors say again and again, there would be less disruption. --Pete (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I take an lot of notice of what you say, because I regard you as a dangerous, loose cannon on Wikipedia. You provide an awful lot of commentary and speculation on Gillard. Almost all of it its out of place here. It's very rare for other people to do it. Maybe you would do better by sticking entirely to what quality sources say, and that excludes speculative, politically motivated pieces from the Murdoch press. HiLo48 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's stop beating about the bush. It's completely obvious to anyone with any brains at all that the ONLY reason that article has been created is to assist ALP and Gillard haters towards their goal of getting rid of the Gillard government. This is meant to be a worthy, quality encyclopaedia. I have no respect whatsoever left for people using this project to push political goals in such a blatant way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not hate Gillard - I applaude her for taking a leadership role and wish others would do more than sit back and criticise. I side with her on some issues (her recent comments about electricity generation). I do not hate anyone - though I occasionally despair at people who use the anonymity of the internet to insult people who disagree with them.Freebird15 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see it this way at all, HiLo. That's not why we report on political scandals and controversies. We do it to inform our readers, and to give a NPOV summary and access to sources. Wikipedia's policies work well to protect any subjects from malicious slander. Have more faith, please. Besides, the purpose of the union movement is to help workers, not to line the pockets of predators. The more light we can shed on wrongdoing, the better for all. --Pete (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
If this story was ONLY about a trade union, and did not ALLEGEDLY involve the PM, this article would not exist. So don't bullshit me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Pete, it's not our role to be "shedding light on wrongdoing". If that's why you're here, please reconsider your position. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 10:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
We aren't the Internet police. Of course we aren't. What we are here for is to provide information, and that goes both ways - positive and negative. Heads of government aren't exempt from wrongdoing and poor behaviour, any more than union bosses, CEOs of major companies and media barons. "Shedding light" is what we do. Not covering things up. That's my position, and I think it fits in well with our shared goal of providing a useful source of good information. --Pete (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at todays news stories, we have good sources for Gillard's involvement in establishing a fund that she stated in the formal application was to receive funds from companies for safety and training of members. We also have her saying that it is actually a ­re-election fund, slush fund, whatever, which is the funds that the leadership team, into which the leadership team puts money so that they can finance their next election campaign. Both statements are well-sourced and widely published today.[9][10] --Pete (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

A week or so ago a fellow editor wondered aloud whether or not whether my "single-purpose account" should be regarded as suspicious. I did not mind the accusation, it allowed me to explain myself (which I did).

Now it turns out that Wikipedia has an article about this: WP:CONFLICT, which reads in part:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested.

Of course we can be quite certain that major political figures like Julia Gillard will have asked one or more people to "keep an eye" on their account, and that is perfectly understandable: I wouldn't want anonymous bloggers having free reign over my biography. Nevertheless it is tiresome when ordinary people to have to deal with single-agenda editors who don't reveal themselves, and I think it would be sweet of editors with a conflict of interest to come clean.

With that in mind, I'd like to set up a small section where anyone who would like to declare a conflict of interest is encouraged to do so. For starters, I'd like to draw attention to Bilby.

Bilby

Bilby, looking at your edits of this article (Bilby's edits of Julia Gillard article) I note the following points:

  • Your edits are usually reversals of other peoples' entries, and are VERY FAST, usually a few minutes after an entry is made, night or day.
  • All your edits seem designed to clean up Julia Gillard's image.
  • You are very focused on issues that only political operatives care about: ensuring that she is never tagged as an "atheiest", ensuring she is described as "unmarried" rather than a "spinster" etc.
  • You have been doing this for over two years.
  • You don't seem to have much interest in Julia Gillard per se: You never add to the article with general information about the her that is WP:NPOV.

I include your edits of the AWU scandal article, which seem to have the effect of changing Surturz's WP:NPOV article by into a silly spiel about, "A scandal that is widely reported but no one was charged and everyone was cleared of wrong-doing so why is this article even here? bla bla."

Interestingly, Bilby is also quite interested in ensuring that the article on Larry Pickering does not contain any relevant information about his campaign against Julia Gillard.

One wonders if this is a coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judas goat (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Bilby has given an extensive explanation of his changes to the Pickering article at Talk:Larry Pickering#Recent edits, and they seem sensible to me, but if such wondering amuses you, don't let me stop you. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Bilby's edits of AWU scandal article

(Note that the bulk of the relevant edits don't appear because I changed the name of the article and because some edits were deleted to protect Gillard/Wilson's reputation).

More generally, I suggest that we don't assume that just because someone has a long standing account that seems to be of a real person that everything is what it seems: There is the possibility that this "real person" has allowed their account to be used by third party to mask the activities of that other party.

I think everyone should be welcome here but why not tell us why you're here?

Freebird15 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is cute. :) No, I don't have a conflict of interest. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Okie Dokie Freebird15 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
If this wasn't so funny it would be a scurrilous attack, especially from an account with a nine-day history on Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
...and whose 65 edits have been exclusively on this article and on the AWU scandal article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN

WP:WELLKNOWN says...

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

(emphasis mine) I won't list them here, but if you look at the AWU scandal page, multiple references from all major Australian news outlets are available for this issue. Now that the Prime Minister has held a news conference dealing almost solely with this issue[11][12], I think we can say that the "allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented" and therefore belongs in the article according to policy. --Surturz (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We passed that point a day or so ago. --Pete (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
My main concern is that over time this is becoming less of an issue, rather than more. We've moved from suspecting that she had gained from the alleged fraud, down to being forced to resign over unwittingly gaining from the alleged fraud, down to incorrectly describing the body on the application. And if it is the case, as she said yesterday, that she neither signed the papers nor filled in that component, then that's gone too. Leaving us with "she probably should have opened a file", and a poor choice of boyfriends. In spite of the media coverage, this has been moving in the direction of a non-issue, rather than becoming more of one. - Bilby (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned that her answers to questions yesterday did not directly address the main points. When asked if she gained from the fund, she doesn't say no, she says she paid for repairs. When questioned in 1995, she stated that she couldn't rule it out. So there's a discrepancy there. About the establishment of the organisation, she says, I am not the signatory to the documents that incorporated this association. I was not an office bearer of the association. This does not seem to square with other statements. It maybe that the documents of establishment and documents of incorporation are two different things. For example, a solicitor doing a house conveyancing will know everything about the transaction and make a signed report to that effect, but their signature will not appear on the official transfer documents. There are other answers given that could and should have been direct answers to direct questions, but are qualified or deflected in some manner. Gillard has indicated that she is not going to address any supplementary questions, so I am left with this uneasy feeling about her answers and the very many contradictions between her statements at the time and those now, and the statements made by other participants. --Pete (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the claimed "multiple" sources are things like The Age reporting that The Australian reported that someone said something negative about Gillard, with no proof provided whatsoever. It has become a media story about what the media said. When one media outlet explicitly reports something as being what another media oulet said, it's NOT a second report on the alleged incident. It's a report on a report. HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
OK for argument's sake let us assume that all of the accusations are completely untrue. Even if that were the case, we should still cover the subject - to debunk the claims! The allegations have been made several times over the course of many years, both in mainstream and social media. It is reasonable to expect that someone encountering some of the allegations might go to Wikipedia to find out the truth, or if the truth is unavailable, at least a quality WP:NPOV examination of the allegations. Social media is unreliable, and mainstream newspapers tend to drip-feed particulars in articles over several days to eke out the maximum return on their journalism. WP has a useful role to play here in assessing and summarising the issue for our readers.
In response to Bilby's concern that "over time this is becoming less of an issue": this issue has been reported in 1995, 2001, 2007, 2011, and now in 2012. It is an enduring issue for Gillard (even though she doesn't want it to be!), and therefore is of lasting historical importance (is not WP:RECENT, in our slang).
As for HiLo48's assertion that the non-Murdoch sources are simply recycling Murdoch content, I disagree. For a start, the recent press conference was covered independently by all media outlets. Secondly, I think most WT:AUSPOL editors would be aware of the long-running feud between the ALP and News Corp. The non-Murdoch sources are discussing The Australian as a player in the story, rather than simply recycling The Oz' content. In any case, even if they were recycling The Oz' content, that would be an argument FOR WP:N, not against it. --Surturz (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I've re-added the brief mention, which serves as a pointer to the main article on the scandal. I think that we should flesh it out a bit more to include the date of the affair and the continued interest after 17 years, as well as a brief coverage of the main points noted by the media over the past week. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The brief mention seems sufficient. It remains rumour, and pretty much nothing more than that, so to flesh it out here would risk giving it too much weight. If it is still an issue in a few days time it will be because something new has emerged, and that might well warrant greater discussion. - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
We have many different sources, we have documents, we have media reports out the wazoo. Describing the thing as "rumour" is misleading. I also n ote that Gillard has not specifically denied several key allegations:
  1. That she derived a benefit from the organisation.
  2. That she knew that the fund was not a "workplace safety fund", instead describing it as a slush fund.
  3. That the affair led to her ceasing employment as a lawyer.
Given that she has outlined there will be no further comments on these matters, all we have are the allegations which she has, by inaction, let stand. --Pete (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
No, she has responded strongly to them. But as always, if we work hard, we can find gaps that we can interpret to leave openings. Although perhaps not the openings you are identifing - she was very clear that she didn't gain financially from the alleged fraud, that she did not know that the fund might be used for fraud, that she was not responsible for signing the documents or writing the description of the fund, and Slater & Gordon have already stated that she took a leave of absence to pursue a senate ticket, as opposed to being fired. Much of the commentary in the media today is about how her press conference left those opposing her with nowhere to go - if this is still live in a few days they'll have been proven wrong, but it seems wise to wait for a bit longer to see how it turns out before expanding the coverage. - Bilby (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have read the transcript carefully and I cannot find where she says she is very clear that she did not benefit financially. I had accepted that there was no dispute she had until I looked at her answer to that exact question. Why did she not answer it directly, instead of deflecting it with an answer to a question that had not been asked and a deflection to the builders? Leaving important points to implication and inference, especially coming from an experienced lawyer and politician, tells me that there are points she does not wish to answer directly and honestly. Seriously, read the transcript carefully and see that she gives herself some wiggle room every time. It was a grand performance to be sure, but if the simple truth is no danger, why not use it? --Pete (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Your reading seems a tad harsh - certainly the media reports I've been reading today say that she strongly denied having any financial benefit. At any rate, the relevant parts are:
JOURNALIST: Can you say categorically, Prime Minister, that none of the funds in this entity were used to pay for renovations on your house?
PM: I've dealt with this allegation a lot in the past and let's be very clear about it. I paid for the renovations on my home in St Phillip Street in Abbotsford.
And later:
JOURNALIST: On the builder, do you think that this will always be a cloud over you because you simply can't rule out the fact that there might have been some money from this association or this entity that ended up helping to renovate your house?
PM: I’ve just said to you I paid for my renovations.
JOURNALIST: Will you rule out –
PM: I paid for my renovations.
There doesn't seem to be any hedging going on. - Bilby (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
She doesn't answer the specific question. Three times she evades it and answers a different question. She said at the time that she couldn't rule out any personal benefit, so i'd like to know if anything has changed. And I'd like to know why she doesn't answer the question. --Pete (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
With all respect to you both, WP:NOTFORUM (obviously) does apply here, so I'd suggest taking this elsewhere ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, and my apologies. :) - 08:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Media Watch (ABC, Johnathon Holmes) has admitted that he was wrong to claim Gillard had answered questions last year. He admits she has still not answered significant questions and has used red herrings to avoid answering questions. Maybe those questions which serious journalists ask can be noted. I don't wish to have anything posted that is misogynistic or any of the bad things Gillard irrelevantly accused others of doing. But the serious questions around setting up a slush fund for a serious purpose that patently was never addressed .. hence the riots this morning in Melbourne. DDB (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you talking about Monday night's Media Watch episode? Because I can't see how you can draw this conclusion at all. As far as I can see from the transcript, Holmes makes two points: that the root of Hedley Thomas' story was not just scurrilous rumours spread by "misogynist nutjobs on the internet", but a primary source being the former Slater & Gordon partner; and secondly that The Australian and other media outlets got themselves into trouble by making errors of fact or poor wording which forced the whole story to be spiked. It must also be noted that Holmes draws attention to Hedley Thomas' assertion in September 2011: "None of the material examined [thousands of pages of documentation and numerous interviews] is capable of supporting the claims that Ms Gillard was a beneficiary of ill-gotten funds or that she knew at the time that Mr Wilson was involved in alleged fraud."—a judgement, Holmes says, that still stands. And it's ridiculous to link the picketing by construction workers in Melbourne this morning to Julia Gillard, the AWU or these alleged events of nearly 20 years ago! --Canley (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
From Ddball: ".. hence the riots this morning in Melbourne." LOL. At least you're honest enough to tell us on your user page that you support the Liberal Party. But that comment doesn't add anything to the discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Except the morning picketing was on the same issue Gillard addressed the slush fund. And Mediawatch's comments were at odds with what they said last year on the same issue. Instead of apology, I might have written backflip. I am not anonymous here and neither am I compromised. I am not affiliated with the Liberal Party but I once was. HiLo's comment adds nothing to this debate. Mediawatch's back flip is salient and exonerates the work of serious journalists .. as it should do. I no longer comment on HSU because of the irrelevant fact that my cousin is Vice President of Fair Work Australia, although I have not discussed this issue and do not know his thoughts DDB (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. I call you on your completely inaccurate and provocative use of the word riots, on a completely irrelevant matter, and you revert to picketing. I simply looked for an explanation of the silly language, and it's obvious I found it. And I've managed to get a more sensible post from you. I think my post achieved a lot, even though that event has absolutely no connection with Gillard. Please stay on topic, and rational. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The accusation is that Gillard sidestepped important questions by pointing to irrelevancy. Anonymous users like Hilo are under no obligation to provide further examples. DDB (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I sincerely apologise for my anonymity. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Book review of Gillard Biography was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Davis 24 June 2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julia_Gillard/Archive_4&oldid=1251202653"