Talk:Tony Abbott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tony Abbott article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] His Rebuttal

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4850 There is a very well written article by Tony here. It may be a good idea to include a quote from here regarding his opinion about religion and state.

[edit] Political Views

While I believe that this article was previously biased towards portraying Abbott in an undeservedly good light, I am concerned that Darren Ray may be motivated by a political agenda in his insertion of not particularly relevant and biased minutiae into this article. In addition I believe it should be known that Darren Ray is known to be a (formerly) fairly well ranking member of one faction of the opposition party in Australia, and therefore may be subject to political bias. (That said, I feel that it still needs to be clear the fact that Tony Abbott has made some decisions as health minister and MP that have been prejudicial, divisive, personally motivated and unpopular.) Snipergirl 0611 (Aust Pacific Time) March 4, 2006

Not taking the bait from the anonymous user, the issue is where is the lack of neutrality in the article? Describing the Minister as "divisive, personally motivated and unpopular" as the anon does would certainly constitute a lack of neutrality but I don't see those words there. Nor do I see the "insertion of not particularly relevant and biased minutiae." Perhaps a serious discussion might be in order.DarrenRay 20:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Some questions for my pseudononymous/anonymous correspondent "Snipergirl":
Is the article really "biased towards portraying Abbott in an undeservedly good light?" If so, where?
Are you saying my "political agenda" is pro or anti Abbott? And if so this is manifesting itself how?
I think it's a reasonably neutral article, that neither puts him in a good light or bad. I admit to being favourably disposed to him as an observer of politics but I don't see how this makes much of a difference to my edits which have referred to controversial remarks he's made in one case and generally removed significant amounts of anonymously or pseudononymously written pejorative material about him. Further, I would appreciate it if you removed the personal attack on me above. DarrenRay 20:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I am not an anonymous user- anonymity would imply posting via an anonymous IP. Please read the Wikipedia FAQ on this matter.Snipergirl

This is where the whole anonymous-pseudonymous user thing is a real drag. How do we really know who is saying/writing what? For what it's worth I think the model of anonymous contributions to be the wrong one. And pseydonymous ones too. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

2) The previous versions of the article have been biased in favour of Tony Abbott. This current version is biased against him.Snipergirl

That is a concern. I don't want to be pro or anti biased. Not at all. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Your political agenda, if any, appears to be anti-Abbott. There has certainly been a swing in the bias of this article since you have begun to edit it.Snipergirl

My political agenda is not particularly anti-Abbott at all. You seem to know me and if you do you would know that. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

4) Your editing of this page has consistently sparked controversy among those who have commented subsequently. I am not the only person who is concerned about your neutrality: Ambi, Xtra and Ed- have all registered concern about neutrality during their edits.Snipergirl

In relation to what edits? DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

5) I have not slandered you in the slightest in my above comments. I have registered genuine concern about your neutrality as editor due to your well-known political involvement, which is clearly relevant to the article at hand given that concern has been raised about the bias in your edits. Please refer to the Wikipedia FAQ on "Neutral Point of View". Perhaps [1] this article illustrates what I mean about conflicts of interest in Wikipedia. Snipergirl 1005 (Aust Pacific Time) March 4, 2006

What about your political involvement? Mine is relevant, you say. But yours is not? This is presumably because you hide behind an alias. Frankly I think you should disclose who you are, and your political agenda and then we can compare apples with apples. Until then, you'll forgive me for not taking that argument very seriously. I have no conflict of interest over editing an article over Abbott. If non-anonymous users think I do - or pseudonymous - then I'll gladly not further edit the article. If anything, I think I have removed a whole series of pejorative language critical of Abbott. Something we should all be doing. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay:

Firstly, if you dislike collective anonymous editing of this kind, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. The whole point is that you are allowed to have equal rights regardless of your usual social status or standing in the political hierarchy. It is an entirely democratic project. I, and other Wikipedians, would not consider registering as a user as anonymous, because an internet persona is a better guide to ones' contributions than what they do in real life.

In terms of political stance: despite my dislike of Abbott and my own left-wing views, I disagree strongly with any form of political bias imposed on his article. This is not a political tool, this is an information source. As someone known widely in Australia as a prominent member of Labor Unity and rather well known for your term served in the Melbourne University Student Union, I think you should understand why your political motives are being questioned here as a potential conflict of interest.

Ed- has covered the controversial edit, that of Abbott's quote, in sufficient detail below.

Finally, please stop reverting all of your edits that have been removed and read the FAQs on content, NPOV and discussing controversial issues before accusing others of misrepresenting you. If you keep this up you WILL be reported.Snipergirl 06:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd swing in here as I've been mentioned, the part I removed misrepresented the situation and I thought I'd quote the relavent part of the Hansard to clear things up: Mr Abbott-Mr Pakula may be very appealing to Cambodian speaking people, who are just two per cent of the electorate of Hotham but 30 per cent of the Labor preselectors of Hotham. What about the 42 per cent of the electors of Hotham who have private health insurance? I read in the Australian last Friday that he still has the Greek branches but he has lost the Spanish branches, the Vietnamese branches as well as the Cambodian branches. I could not help but think, ‘Are there any Australians left in the so-called Australian Labor Party today?’

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER—Order! There is far too much noise. Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker is on his feet.

Mr Albanese—On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the minister should withdraw that extraordinarily outrageous slur on every Australian who does not have an Anglo-Celtic name in this country. We have heard the dog whistle from this mob one after the other, but this minister, as usual, has gone too far and I ask him to withdraw it.

The SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler has made his point.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—Mr Speaker, there is no point of order. The honourable member across the way in fact was just debating the question. There is another time and place for that.

The SPEAKER—The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. I have not ruled on that matter. I was listening to the answer by the Minister for Health and Ageing. I did not see that as offensive, but if the member would like it withdrawn—

Mr Albanese—Mr Speaker, I did and 46 per cent of my electorate will find that offensive as well.

Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, if it would assist the member for Grayndler I am happy to withdraw anything that is giving him offence, but I say this: I think the Australian people are entitled to reject the way the Australian Labor Party constantly put people into ethnic ghettos. That is what they are trying to do to people. We should have Australian branches in Australian political parties—

Abbott's sarcasm couldn't be conveyed in the hansard but anyone who watched that question time, or is familiar with Abbott's speaking style and role within the Liberal party will understand just what he meant in his 'apology'. That's why I took exception to a line within a part of an article and chose to remove that part of the article because it misrepresented the exchange between Anthony Albanese and Abbott. The part I removed has been replaced with some editing done though I feel it still misrepresents the situation in the last line "[h]e withdrew the remark when pressed for an apology by Labor MP Anthony Albanese prior to any comment from the Speaker". The Hansard clearly shows that the Speaker ruled on Albanese's point of order before Abbott supposedly withdrew, the second problem is with the withdrawl itself. Technically speaking, Abbott didn't withdraw his statement, he merely stated that he would be happy to withdraw anything which caused offence to Mr Albanese. To my understanding House practice dictates that a withdrawl must be made with no statement attached therefore (assuming Abbott did want to withdraw) his withdrawl was out of order and could not be applied, despite the Speaker not ruling on the order of the withdrawl. Ed- 05:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I hadn't seen the Hansard and the references to what happened in the House should certainly be altered to reflect that. I will put up a proposed draft for you to consider. DarrenRay 06:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I think this article is not biased either pro nor anti Abbott. Does anyone disagree and if so please state how so so we can sort it out. DarrenRay 01:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than just edit them out, my problems are as follows.

Abbott is widely known as an outspoken social conservative, and opposes abortion

Should read personally opposes abortion, or closer to the truth, is opposed to what he sees as liberal abortion laws in Australia.

He has expressed strong support for multi-culturalism. However, he attracted some criticism in February 2006, when lampooning a Labor preselection involving ethnic based factions Abbott posed a rhetorical question "Are there any Australians in the so-called Australian Labor Party?" He withdrew the remark when pressed for an apology by Labor MP Anthony Albanese prior to any comment from the Speaker.

Would be better if it read

Abbott is widely accepted as a proponent of multiculturalism though he attracted some criticism in February 2006, when he posed a rhetorical question "Are there any Australians in the so-called Australian Labor Party?" whilst attacking what he saw as divisive racial factionalism in the contraversial preselection for the seat of Hotham.

Those are two fairly small problems and I don't think the page is deserving a biased tag, particularly given it's length though the problems do need to be worked out. Ed- 04:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Howard's Chosen One?

The last part of the article reads "speculation has surrounded Abbott that he might be a future leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. In particular there has been speculation that Prime Minister John Howard...is grooming Abbott as his successor, in preference to the Liberal Deputy Leader, Peter Costello... Abbott, however, has disavowed any interest in becoming Liberal leader".

Where is the evidence that Howard is grooming Abbott in particular? Brendan Nelson was the one promoted in the last cabinet reshuffle, to the high profile Defense ministry. Furthermore, Julie Bishop has also been promoted to a more prominent ministry. So, it seems a bit of an audacious action to label Abbott as 'Howard's guy' without backing it up with a verifiable source. I couldn't find one. Unless anyone else can, then this statement should be removed. I elliot 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect that statement might be a bit outdated - it wasn't an unreasonable claim to make two years ago, but it is now. Rebecca 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Neutrality

I would say it is a well written and balanced article, covering some good and bad points of the man. Add the thing in about his comment on ethnic-based branch stacking if you wish, but more important I think is his opposition to stem cell research and the right of confidentiality for pregnant teenagers.

[edit] Abbott's Views on HIV/AIDS

Should we mention that (I quote from an ABC interview a couple of weeks ago) "HIV/AIDS is primarily a disease of intravenous drug users and homosexuals". Personally I think it is quite noteworthy as he is health minister making dangerous comments, any thoughts (from anyone)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squall1991 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Umm, but aren't drug users (who use needles to inject themselves) and homosexuals the primary victims of HIV/AIDS? Cheers, Rothery 11:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. Thinking before speaking is usually a positive. Rebecca 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, who is? [edit: never mind, I've followed that up] But on topic, if he was criticised for these comments to a notable degree, and this can be cited by a reliable source, then by all means it should be added. Cheers, Rothery 01:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health Portfolio Difficult?

(moved and responded)

There's a neutrality tag on the comment about Health being a traditionally difficult portfolio. I don't think it needs to be there. In Australia, the US, Canada and most similar parliaments, Health is notoriously a proving ground for younger politicians. I think it should be removed. 152.91.9.9 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Health is traditionally difficult at the state level, but I don't think that is true at the Federal level. In the absence of a good cite, I think the comment should be removed altogether. Peter Ballard 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy?

The following paragraph did not seem to be controversial, so I have removed it:

In July 2006, when visiting the Pitlands in north-west South Australia, Abbott suggested Aboriginal people could be recruited to shoot wild camels that inhabit Central Australia. "Why not get them out shooting the camels," he said. "It gives them something they would love to do and it beats petrol sniffing."[21]

If anyone wishes to put it back, perhaps they could explain how it is controversial. JehoshaphatJIJ 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no view on it either way, but we don't only include controversial issues in our biographies. -- JackofOz 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The paragraph was in the section called "Controversies", which is why I thought it would be best to remove it. JehoshaphatJIJ (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It sounds like the editor who put it in thought it should have been a controversy, and on the face of it, I wouldn't disagree with that because it sounds pretty inflammatory - but since it didn't actually become a controversy, I agree it doesn't belong in that section. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye Jerusalem

An anon editor has inserted text concerning the book Goodbye Jerusalem. I believe the content inserted breaches Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

The anon has asserted on my talk page and in edit summaries The edits I made to the Tony Abbot pages does not violate the biography of a living person policy in any way, as the dilemna itself was closely documented by the media. Just because the allegations were determined false, does not mean that they shouldn't be a part of his biopgrahy. Again... if your logic were sound, then OJ Simpsons murder charge information shouldn't be included in the wikipedia, because he was proven innocent.

I find there is a significant difference between somebody who was found not guilty in a criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt plays a role here) but found guilty in a civil trial - see O. J. Simpson#Murder case and moreover has not sued successfully for defamation to suppress the allegations. Abbott did sue successfully for defamation. The book was withdrawn becuase the publisher accepted that the story was fabricated. We should not repeat the allegations as they thus do indeed breach our policy on living persons - specifically:

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
  • Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced. ...

Not only is the material unsourced, it was found by the courts to be untrue. If material is to be included about the book and court case it should be with words that do not reproduce untrue statements or even hint at them. --Matilda talk 00:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your arguments, but the allegations contained in Ellis's book were much discussed in the media. They were indeed found to be untrue, but the fact that there was a court case about them surely means they're in the public domain. Merely reporting the fact of the original publication, the fact of the court case, the fact they were found to be untrue, and the fact that Ellis's book had to be pulped and had to be republished minus the offending text, does not mean we're casting any sort of slur against any of the parties involved. Re the inclusion of this text being unsourced - that definitely breaks WP guidelines, but I'm sure many sources could be found to support the text. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned it's inclusion is giving undue weight. (The story is really about the idiocy of Bob Ellis, the Abbotts and Costellos were just victims). A short reference - as at Peter Costello - may be appropriate. It also doesn't really belong under "controversies", in the sense that all the other events under "controversies" are controversial things Abbott himself did. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The edit that I have reverted several times does include the defamatory allegations that in my very strong view should not be repeated. I have no difficulties with the text included in the Peter Costello article, however I can see no logical place to include it in this article as per Peter Ballard's comments - essentially it is trivial to Abbott (and therefor (WP:UNDUE applies ) - less so to Ellis - significant hiccup in his career I would have thought.--Matilda talk 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Does anyone else question the license of the image? Where's the meta information for example? Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)