Talk:Julia Gillard
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the article:
Gillard expressed her exasperation with the leading Right figures backing Kim Beazley's leadership bid, claiming that they were using the media to undermine her [1].
Unfortunately, there's nothing at that link, due to the fact that News Limited doesn't keep it's articles free for too long. Is there an alternate link to support this?
Contents |
[edit] This is weird!
The photograph is flipped. This is unprofessional and obvious. The photograph can be used on the LEFT side of the article in such cases so that the subject is looking into the article. --Jumbo 06:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The image does not look right when it's flipped. I've previously mentioned this on the image's talk page. - Ivan K
[edit] motherhood career as a top-ranking politician incompatible
yeah, that source does not say that, so either fix the source or leave it out (BLP)... Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 12:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- That misquote has been in the article long before I ever looked at it.... --Peta 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- This interview gives a pretty good summary of her personal life and background if anyone is interested in fleshing things out a bit more; I'm certainly not. --Peta 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) - Why did you restore it then? I'm happy for it to be there if it's legit, but it seems like a pretty controversial statement for anyone to make, let alone such a high ranking woman. I'll put the reference to the relationship becoming public back in, didn't realise I got rid of it, sorry. WikiTownsvillian 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many people have heard about the Bulletin interview, I assumed that the person who added it had cited it at least vaguely correctly; even if she insists that it's a misquote (as she does in the McCrossin article from April - and the version in this article certainly was) she did say
- (edit conflict) - Why did you restore it then? I'm happy for it to be there if it's legit, but it seems like a pretty controversial statement for anyone to make, let alone such a high ranking woman. I'll put the reference to the relationship becoming public back in, didn't realise I got rid of it, sorry. WikiTownsvillian 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If Peter Costello genuinely thought about it, could he be the mother of three children, have been treasurer for more than a decade and be the next in line to be prime minister? Could John Howard have been a mother to his children, as opposed to a father, and be in the position the is in today? The frank answer is no. Julia Gillard, The Bulletin, 23 January 2007. --Peta 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Fair enough, lets add it to the article, although probably not in the personal section, it's a bit more significant than personal life when she's commenting on women in Australian politics, maybe it could be a section of it's own and we can also move the barren comments there? WikiTownsvillian 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Not Deputy Prime Minister Yet
She is not the Deputy Prime Minister yet until Kevin Rudd is sworn in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.233.86 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quite right.--RoryReloaded (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
"As a consequence of the Labor Party's victory [...] Julia Gillard became Deputy Prime Minister-elect"
- There's apparently been a bit of a tussle over calling Kevin Rudd Prime Minister-elect. While PM-elect seems reasonably well-established, Deputy-PM-elect seems to be an awkward attempt to sound encyclopedic. I won't touch it, since it caused so much heat elsewhere, but wouldn't "Julia Gillard will become Deputy Prime Minister" sound better? -- PaulxSA (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Title and swearing in
She was sworn in this morning by the Governor-General as a Federal Executive Councillor. This confers her the title of "The Honourable". She was subsequently sworn in as a Minister of the Crown with additional responsibility as Deputy Prime Minister. 203.7.140.3 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Affirmation
Whether people being sworn in to federal office swear an oath or make an affirmation is entirely their choice [2]. It's absolutely non-controversial (except maybe for those folk who see a crown portfolio being somehow connected with God, possibly stemming from the Queen being Supreme Governor of the Church of England). I really see no point in mentioning that she made an affirmation. It's factual, but lots of people do this. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Two third of the ministers made an affirmation, so it is common. It is, however, also notable to non-Australians who don't realise how much of a non-issue religion is in Australian politics. Sad mouse (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I see what you're saying. However, mentioning that any particular person - whether it be Julia Gillard or anyone else - took an affirmation almost suggests they're doing something out of the ordinary. Information about the relative proportions of ministers who choose oaths vs. affirmations might be suitable for Government of Australia or Cabinet of Australia. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Acting Prime Minister
From time to time, she will act as PM, as all deputies do. The present occasion is noteworthy, being the first time a woman has ever been acting PM in Australia; but future such occasions won't be notable. Altering the lead to call her the Acting PM etc is silly. We should make note of this in the body of the article, and perhaps a mention within the lead para, but not by going so far as to start off with titling her "Acting Prime Minister", which is a very temporary designation. Her principal and ongoing title is "Deputy Prime Minister" and Minister for X, Y and Z. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] British nationality
Someone's just added British to her nationality, which makes it look as if she's a dual national. I rather doubt that. The Heather Hill and other cases show conclusively that Britain is a foreign power for constitutional purposes, and members/senators have to demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to renounce their former citizenship (which is just not possible in some cases, but the UK is not one of them). I appreciate that nationality and citizenship are different concepts, but Gillard migrated here at a young age and we'd need some proof that she still regards herself as a British national as well as an Australian national, particularly as she's the Deputy PM of Australia. Any objections to this being removed? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)