Jump to content

Talk:Mathias Cormann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Background section is weak

[edit]

I get it that his Belgium law expertise has no applicability to the Australian (Common Law) legal system. It would be like getting a steam engine mechanic to build a television. So he took a job as a gardener at PLC. OK, how did he qualify for immigration then? I doubt that he would have met visa requirements due to a shortage of school gardeners, and can’t see him claiming to be a Cambodian refugee, so he must have qualified for some other reason, which seems to be unstated. Also you don't go from being a gardener to "acting general manager" of HBF in one hit, and as HBF is not part of the WA Liberal Party, one would assume the man has had some sort of business career which is not mentioned. Surely this is of interest as it would show not only his background, but the sort of experience and expertise he brings to the Senate. Surely the author isn’t implying he got the job of “acting general manager” purely down to his political connections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.12.196 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No implication intended—I started this article in 2007 based on what information and dates were available at the time, essentially an AAP article which gave the occupations and dates mentioned above. I have not come across any further information which fills in these gaps in his resume. Interestingly, the Senator himself or his staff (User:Mcormann?) seem to have been involved in editing the article quite extensively but have not filled out these details. That Senator Cormann's law qualifications did not allow him to actually practice law in Australia does not mean that those qualifications and skills cannot be considered regarding immigration approval—but unless there are references for this and other supplementary information, it can't be included. --Canley (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of European qualifed lawyers working in Australia. Maybe if you feel like it is important, you could always write him a letter and ask. I am sure he would be happy to clarify. And there is nothing wrong with editing your own article with factual and correct information. Its not a conspiracy, all the pollies do it. 124.183.101.177 (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

Religion neither relevant nor irrelevant, it is simply giving the reader a piece of information about the individual. There is absolutely no reason to not add it if it is sourced, which in this case, it is. There's not much more to say... why would wikipedia give the option to add the religion of an individual in the infobox if it was so irrelevant. The source is there, so why not simply add it. Andreas11213 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several fields in the politician infobox, such as parents and signature, that we do not have to fill just because we can. If a politician's religion has no direct role in their performance, then it serves no purpose to report it. If Cormann's political position on homosexuality, divorce or right to life is impacted by his religion, then it would be appropriate to report that. At the moment, I do not see that his religion plays any part in defining his performance as a politician or minister. Too often, religion is used to categorise or stigmatise an individual (eg Gillard) when it is just plain irrelevant to their service. The Liberal Party does not allow individual conscience votes, so it is unlikely that Cormann's religion will have any effect on future legislation. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will post what I wrote on the politics talk page regarding this matter.
I'm neither for nor against their inclusion. Just so long as such an inclusion is adequately sourced, given it's potentially controversial nature. I would argue the standard should be at least a direct quote from the individual identifying themselves as a practising adherent of said religion. Any lower standard would likely result in misrepresentation of individuals, intentionally or unintentionally.The Tepes (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Cory Bernardi and Mathias Cormann. It's obvious that Bernadi's conservative religious views have a huge influence on his public policy position on many things. Not so for Cormann. To give both the same simplistic "Catholic" label in the Infobox is simply misleading. Religion is very relevant in Bernardi's case. Not at all in Cormann's. It is NOT a helpful addition to the Infobox in his case. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see it as misleading. I don't think it's addition necessarily indicates that its an influence on their profession, my view is it's just basic biographical information. Like profession, awards, alma mater etc. I think it's just helpful basic biographical info that when properly sourced shouldn't be an issue.
I see your point, but I don't agree. That being said I'm not fussed whether or not they're included.The Tepes (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, it's not misleading. He is a Catholic, there is nothing misleading about that. Just because religion doesn't necessarily have an influence on his political career, doesn't mean it's not important. This shouldn't even be about importance or unimportance, as I have already said, it's just a piece of formation about an individual that would be useful for readers to know, nothing more, nothing less. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the infobox had fields for Hair Colour, Shoe Size or IQ you would answer those as well, since "it's just a piece of formation about an individual that would be useful for readers to know"? WWGB (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas - why is it useful for readers to know some attribute of someone that has no impact whatsoever on his behaviour? HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with the impact of his political decision making, it's simply and extra bit of information for them to know about him. And now you're just being stupid, you can't compare insignificant things like shoe size and IQ to religion. Besides, they can see his hair colour already in his photo, and it's not brown, its actually grey. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, IQ is significant to religion. It has been academically established that religious people are less intelligent than atheists. WWGB (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if his religion has nothing to do with Cormann's political decision making, then it's insignificant, isn't it? Over to you Andreas. Why include it? Oh, and BTW, "now you're just being stupid" is pretty clearly a breach of our policy on personal attacks. Be very careful. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the things you have said about me on Wikipedia are massive breaches of WP:NPA, so I don't really care. Also that study is absolute crap and has nothing to do with this. For the last time, this is not about relevance, it is about adding a piece of information about an individual. Does the birthplace of a politician have anything to do with their decision making, or who their children or spouses are, or a link to their website? No, but they are useful things to know. So WHY NOT ADD IT IF IT IS SOURCED? Andreas11213 (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, you are wrong. Cormann joined Christlich Soziale Partei, a Christian democratic party in Belgium, so yes, in this case, his religion does have a role in his political decision making. Andreas11213 (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's now a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. Relevance? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Christlich Soziale Partei it appears his membership had more to do with his language then religion. Anyway he was never elected as a member of that party.The Tepes (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular objection to listing the religion. I think WWGB's argument about selective filling of fields carries more weight than HiLo's about not influencing public behaviour, but I would generally consider religion one of the six or so biographical fields that one would expect to be filled. ADB includes it in their little bio-summaries, for example. Additionally, this is generally the kind of information that should be represented somewhere, but may not come up in the course of the prose. Without the infobox parameter, our article does not mention that Cormann is Catholic; I can't imagine it being disputed that it should. I also continue to have a pretty major problem with the idea of editors deciding whether certain politicians are "obviously" influenced by their religious convictions in public life, and others are not. That seems, to my mind, to be allowing way too much original research and POV to intrude into our role. It would be far better to simply list the religion as a general rule, where it is verifiable. Frickeg (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could not have put it better myself. Andreas11213 (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claims that religion is "one of the six or so biographical fields that one would expect to be filled" and "this is generally the kind of information that should be represented somewhere" are precisely the sorts of claim that I have been challenging all my life. My response is "Why?" Those claims, especially when taken together, seem pretty much on a par with "We've always done it that way". That's one of the worst reasons for doing anything. We must be able to justify it with better reasons than that. HiLo48 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because when I read a biography of someone, I want a complete picture of them. I am not religious myself, but it is pretty clear that for people who are religious, it is a big part of their identity. Maybe I am doing a study on religious beliefs of Australian politicians. Am I to turn to Wikipedia for some basic information, only to find we don't have that information, sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere, it's not relevant. I just find this a completely baffling argument. This is verifiable, clearly relevant information. To not include it would be unforgivable WP:POV. Frickeg (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that "for people who are religious, it is a big part of their identity". So for them, we include it. However, most people in Australia today are not religious. For them, a label they gained at birth and which, in reality, makes them no different from someone else with a different religious label, is meaningless, if not downright misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's original research, and it's also false. The last census found that 62% of Australians identify as Christian, and a further 7% identify with a non-Christian religion. So no, most Australians are in fact religious. It's not misleading, he identifies as Catholic, there is simply nothing whatsoever misleading about that. There is a reliable source that can back that up, so it should be added. There is literally nothing else to say. Most users have agreed that they don't really care if religion is included in the infobox, HiLo48 and WWGB appear to be the only ones with an objection. I think it's time to add religion into the infobox, because most users don't mind if it is added and it's soured. Andreas11213 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your post too contains original research. The answers to that census question are pretty meaningless. Perhaps you should join the current discussion at Religion in Australia. Only 7% of Australians attend church regularly. It's in that article, in case you want to accuse me of OR again.) I'd be completely happy for Religion to be included in the Infobox of anyone from that 7%. But for most of the rest, it's just a label they acquired at birth. If Religion belongs anywhere, it belongs in their parents' Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone doesn't go to church doesn't mean they can't be Catholic/Anglican/Muslim/Jewish/whatever else. Plus, on what are you basing the fact that Cormann doesn't go to church? Assumption? Where we have verifiable information that someone identifies as a certain religion, it's completely inappropriate for us to then require "further proof" - for us to say, oh, you're not a real Catholic if you don't go to church. Frickeg (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against things I haven't said. I have no idea whether Cormann regularly attends church. Do you? If he does, then there is no problem including his religion here. The same could apply if he publicly self identifies as belonging to a particular faith. Most Australian Protestants don't. A lot of "Catholics" do (they are better trained by the church), but, as I said earlier, to many it's really just a label, not a religion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, we all deserve a trout for not going to the sources earlier: [1] - "Running through the entire narrative has been his conservative Christian faith", "He is a regular church-goer", plenty of other references. This suffices, surely? Frickeg (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, I'm assuming you're an athiest, so it's not your place to speak on behalf of religious people in regards to how seriously they take their faith. Even if you are religious, it is still not your place to assume that people think of religion as a label. I for one don't consider my religion a "label" and I'm pretty sure most people don't either. A majority of Australians are clearly religious, as shown by the 2011 census, so you're argument that religion is insignificant in Australia just doesn't have a leg to stand on. We now have two reliable sources so I think it's time we add religion back into the infobox. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your final sentence. I don't agree with "A majority of Australians are clearly religious". HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, nor do I. A majority of politicians, on the other hand ... Frickeg (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say most people are religious, spiritual maybe, but not religious. After all those who write in Jedi as religious in the census go towards the total number of religious Australians. I really have no issue with a politicians religion is included in the infobox, but the standard for what source can be used should be extremely high, anything less then a direct quote from the individual stating they are a practising member "X" religion is too low in my opinion.The Tepes (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that's about where I stand too. Sadly, given politicians' willingness to lie to please their constituency, even their own claims make for lousy sources. So long as we express it in the form of "Senator X has declared that he is a practising Catholic" (or Jedi, or whatever) that will have to be good enough. Someone else writing about it certainly isn't good enough. HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we're back to requiring a higher standard for religion, for no apparent reason. We shouldn't be second-guessing people's motivations; I don't doubt plenty of politicians are publicly more devout than privately, but we can't be carrying that over into POV-laden interpretation of sources. If we have sources that would be considered reliable for any other information (official profiles, journalistic profiles, etc.), then that should be fine. I am honestly baffled by this. But to put this to rest - I take it we are all satisfied with the source above on Cormann? (Andreas's original one was broken, I think - it didn't seem to take me to the right page.) Frickeg (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for a higher standard of source was less about politicians exaggerating their adherence to religion, and more about ensuring that the page does not misrepresent their beliefs as individuals, especially given the controversial nature, and misrepresentation of this area is not uncommon. As long as their is a source that, to use this page as an example, has Cormann stating directly he is a practising Roman Catholic then I see no problem including it in the infobox, though I would perhaps also argue a sentence explaining his belief in the Personal Life section should be included as well. Same goes for all pages for individuals, politicians or otherwise.The Tepes (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on this page should be limited to why the religion of this individual should/should not be included in his infobox and whether there is a need to add any additional text in in the content of this article. If editors have a view about whether religion should be removed from all officeholder infoboxes (surely an absurd proposition) or wish to propose a higher standard for the attestation of religiosity, that conversation should be moved to the Infobox officeholder talk page. In relation to Cormann, my view is that, assuming that there is a reliable source, Cormann's religion should be included in the infobox only. If there is no source that clearly indicates that religion has influenced his political views/decisions, I see no reason for further mention of his religion. Readers will see it for what is is; a well-sourced reference to his religion that has not publicly impacted, one way or another, on his political views/decisions. This proposed approach places my view at odds with The Tepes, who proposes that, in addition to listing in the infobox, the article mentions that his religion has not impacted political views. Such a claim would need to be backed by a reliable source. Rangasyd (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rangasyd I would request that you do not misrepresent my argument. At no point did I state that the article mentions that his religion has not impacted political views, I argued that his religion should be mentioned under his person life as well as the infobox. A fair request to make in my opinion. I was not the one who was arguing that religion impacts on his political views, not other politicians political views at all. A fact I make clear in previous posts. It was HiLo48 who raised the argument about religion impacting certain politicians positions and not others. Had you adequately read the discussion this should have been clear to you.The Tepes (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rangasyd, the Infobox is meant to contain a summary of what's in the article. Your proposal doesn't fit that policy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Tepes, I am deeply sorry if you feel that I have misrepresented your views in any way, shape, or form. That was not, nor is not, my intention. I wish you hassle-free Wiki-editing and a long life. HiLo48, thank you for drawing my attention to the purpose of an infobox. I feel so much more enlightened through your insightful edits. May there be many more. Rangasyd (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new category (or at least an add to an existing category): Individuals who served in multiple country's governments

[edit]

It likely isn't a long list, since it should exclude those who served in the same geographic area (imagine a Rhodesian politician then winning a post in a Zimbabwean government) and ideally would exclude those who shift between a national entity and a supranational elected entity (e.g. Europarl to national legislative body)

However, the subject of this article did serve in both a Belgian government and in the Australian parliament. That, in my humble opinion, is highly notable.

If this category doesn't exist yet, it should. If it does, he should be on it.

We have Category:Legislators who represented multiple jurisdictions. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mathias Cormann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle/great-uncle

[edit]

Re today's edits, I've just had the following request from Cormann's office:

This is *** from the office of the Minister for Finance, Mathias Cormann.
I understand from the Wikipedia volunteer team that you made this following edit to the 'early life' section of Mathias Cormann's entry on Wikipedia -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Cormann:
Both his parents' families were affected by World War II, with one of his father's uncles sent to a concentration camp for publishing anti-Nazi articles in a local newspaper.
This is not correct, it was the Minister’s great-uncle – could this please be corrected:
Both his parents' families were affected by World War II, with his great uncle sent to a concentration camp for publishing anti-Nazi articles in a local newspaper.
> Thank you for your assistance in ensuring that this entry remains factually accurate.

I'm a bit confused, as "father's uncle" and "great-uncle" are synonymous for me. I've asked for clarification, but would anyone else interpret that differently? Original source states "A grand-uncle on his father's side". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, granduncle / great-uncle / father's uncle are synonymous. Now there is a new editor repeatedly changing it to "father's great-uncle" which doesn't match either the SMH source or the minister's office request. --Canley (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have also received an email from the minister's office, confirming it should be his father's great-uncle (although same as the request you got it also confusingly says "Minister's great uncle"), but that clarifies it enough for me to leave it as "father's great uncle" as User:Paul999999012 changed it to. I have tagged this account as a likely connected contributor, as the edits are the same as the requests from the Minister's office. --Canley (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. If that's the case, do you think it's still worthy of inclusion in the article? When you're talking about three generations removed and non-direct descent, I'm not sure of the significance to Cormann born 25 years post-war. If the original article had gotten the connection correct, I think I would have hesitated to include here. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mathias_Cormann&oldid=1201150993"