Julia Gillard - RationalWiki
Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir l Julia Gillard Meets+President+Liberia/ dayline.info - Blogs. Crikey ventured deep into "misogynist grubby nut-job" headquarters last week to meet Michael Smith, the former shock jock leading the crusade against Julia Gillard over But he seems to have found his calling in blogging. The difficulty, for any blogger, is to make oneself heard in the cacophony of online voices. I've got no doubt that Julia Gillard would love to sue all of them - or rather, .. Thanks for the chat, and have yourself a good weekend - we'll meet again I'm sure. .. dayline.info
But I'm inclined to wait a bit longer to see if the story has legs this time around beyond the allegations. 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.
Recent edit of Villawood Villawood detention centre is not in Villawood. Villawood is merely the name of the centre, not the location. The suburb is adjacent to Chester Hill. Opinion polls are not fact, nor can any link between current events and changes in polls be made with any certainty. 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: 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. 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: 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. Please do not add it back. We should only mention opinion polls where they cause something to happen e. We should not use them to assess events in the article - otherwise half the article would be opinion polling! Please be aware that you will likely violate the three revert rule if you add it back. This meets your objection and is a substantial change which renders your reversion and appeal to three revert rule invalid.
As such, this survey doesn't support the claims which are being attributed to it, and I think that this should be removed. 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. Once it is in there for a while it becomes the "consensus version" and becomes harder to remove.
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?
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-Dyour 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.
No interpretation should ever be presented, whether it be by us, by the media, or by the pollsters. Leave the interpretation to our readers.
Not Wikipedia worthy: The story of Jennifer and Jordan Nash | Freshlyworded
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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This means we either name her when quoting her and note her party affilitations, or we don't cite her at all.
The panel ultimately announced backing for a temporary carbon tax, leading in to an Emissions Trading Scheme. During the Election campaign, Gillard said that no carbon tax would be introduced under a government she led. The government proposed the Clean Energy Bill in February , which the opposition claimed to be a broken election promise. During this election campaign Gillard supported pricing carbon, saying: 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. 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 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. 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 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. If she said it, when and where? 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. 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. 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? 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. Another source on this topic is the Australian Story about Julia Gillard: 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. The onus is on 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. Looks to me like WP: 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.
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. 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. 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. In regard to trimming, I don't want to loose most of that work, whatever happens.
Nasty bloggers and the threat of digital martyrs
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. 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. But yes, this section should be smaller than climate change! EVENTit 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: EVENTthen the subpage can be promoted. If not, it can be deleted. Gillard's speech would have a place in that.
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: It's the sort of thing parties do to damage their opponents. The Lib strategy on the "carbon tax" is a similar one. Expat Chloe Angyal wrote for Britain's The Guardian that the speech tackled "sexism head-on" and was a "masterful, righteous take-down"  and similar opinions were expressed by other expatriate Australian journalists.
Following the election, Gillard appointed Rudd as Foreign Minister in her minority government. The unusual circumstances of Rudd's replacement by his own party prior to completion of his first term in office, the subsequent circumstances of Labor operating without an outright Parliamentary majority, persistent two-party-preferred polling results favouring the Liberal-National opposition, and some controversial policy decisions by Julia Gillard contributed to an environment in which leadership tensions within the Labor Party were to remain a major issue.
As late as Mayprior to challenging Rudd, Julia Gillard was quipping to the media that "There's more chance of me becoming the full forward for the Dogs than there is of any change in the Labor Party".
Daryl Melham when asked by a reporter on the night of the challenge if indeed a challenge was on, replied: ABC have lost all credibility. Leadership tensions were a feature of Labor's election campaign, with a series of damaging leaks apparently emanating from people connected to the Rudd Government 's inner Cabinet circle. Speculation as to Rudd's desire to return to the leadership of the party became a near constant feature of media commentary on the Labor Party. Minority Government complicated Labor's response to the issue.
In OctoberQueensland backbencher Graham Perrett announced that if Labor replaced Gillard with Rudd, he would resign and force a by-election — a move which could cost Labor government. Simon Crean told radio 3AW: People will not elect as leaders those they don't perceive as team players". In a tearful address he called on colleagues to stop publicly attacking each other. Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan lambasted Rudd as "dysfunctional"; cabinet colleague Tony Burke said of Rudd's term in office that "the stories that were around of the chaos, of the temperament, of the inability to have decisions made, they are not stories"; Nicola Roxon declared she could not work with Rudd again; Stephen Conroy said that Rudd had had "contempt" for his colleagues, the Parliament and the public.
Prime Minister Gillard refused to accept Albanese's resignation. Rudd returned to the backbench and promised loyalty to Gillard till the next election. Gillard described the events leading up to the ballot as "ugly" but said that the leadership issue was now "determined".
Following Rudd's decision not to contest, Fitzgibbon resigned from his post, along with other Rudd supporters. Leadership tension continued within the Gillard Government between the Labor leadership spill and Gillard called a leadership spill for 4. Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June On 26 JuneGillard called another leadership spill in the face of mounting speculation about Rudd's intentions. Rudd won the ballotand was sworn in as Prime Minister the following day.
Following the result, Gillard announced: In accordance with the pledge I gave earlier today I announce that I will not recontest the federal electorate of Lalor at the forthcoming election.