Talk:Tim Mathieson

Notability

Mathieson is the long standing partner of Australia's new Prime Minister. This makes him significant to all Australians. is an important article. Please keep the article about him. See amongst other wikipedia articles Denis Thatcher. You must be fair to Australia. P.S. The couple have since appeared on Australian Story on the ABC, The Australian Women's Weekly, an up coming book on the labour party and the news. See this article. Thanks, Brett

Per WP:NOTINHERITED, "family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits." This guy does not make the cut. Comment redacted. WWGB (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But there is a special disclaimer for the 'first lady' (and by extension first gentleman) which you'll see if you read WP:NOTINHERITED. Donama (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Spouse or partner or similar word should be used in lead

I have updated the lead accordingly. See Common-law marriage to clarify the use of the term 'common law spouse' which I'm happy to have changed to 'defacto' or similar. Donama (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Putting a term like "common law spouse" or "defacto" in the lead is value-laden. The commonly accepted term is "partner". (Having to deal with an unmarried PM is new ground in many areas ..... ) WWGB (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Occupation

I thought Mathieson was a hairdresser... [1] [2] [3] [4]? Романов (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't "dressed hair" for at least five years (other than Julia's). Read the article. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

However it is a profession of his. Романов (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hairdressing is a profession? I wasted my time going to uni ... WWGB (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not currently all the jobs I have worked in before. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To become a qualified haidresser, whatever his name is received qualifications from TAFE. Hilo48, in John Howards article in the infobox it has listed 'Solicitor' under profession, he hasn't practiced for decades, does that mean he is no longer a solicitor, because he hasn't practiced in that profession for a while? Романов (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say only his current profession is relevant to the infobox and the John Howard article should be updated accordingly -- it's not an excuse to put outdated information here. There's detailed information about his working life in the article detail. Donama (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Spouse?

In Australia is he considered to be Gillard's spouse? The spouse officeholder infobox and spouse category are not usually used for people who have never married the person they are the 'spouse' of. Jim Michael (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mathieson used the term himself: "We haven't talked about anything more than being spouses at this stage". [5] WWGB (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Is him using the term spouse in that way sufficient to categorise him as such? The Officeholder infobox gives the impression that 'Partner of the PM' is an official political position, which I'm sure it is not. He doesn't have an official role as Gillard's partner, hence I think the infobox should be changed to the Person infobox. I haven't seen the kind of infobox used in this article on any other Wikipedia article where the subject has never married the politician they are the partner of. Jim Michael (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many firsts surrounding this Prime Minister. I think we will just have to get used to it. HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the Infobox Officeholder needs removing from this and any other PM spouse (including the married ones) articles immediately. Being the spouse (husband, wife, partner, whatever) of the PM is not an office by any stretch of the imagination.This whole idea that there is some of sort of "First Lady/Bloke" position analogous with the U.S. position is not tenable on the evidence and it reeks of wannabe-Americaness. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Partner of the PM is not an office; can anyone justify the use of the current infobox in the article? Jim Michael (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the generic Template:Infobox person would be more appropriate. The trouble is that EVERY PM's spouse has been set up with Template:Infobox officeholder. If we change Timmy then all the rest will need to be changed, with likely edit wars? WWGB (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathieson isn't equivalent to the others, as they all married a PM. I can't see a case for claiming he is an officeholder as her partner. Jim Michael (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Full name

What is Mr. Mathieson's full name? Does he have a middle name? Is "Tim" short for Timothy? Is there a reliable source that can assist in answering these questions anywhere. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This article reports it as Timothy Raymond Mathieson: http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-man-behind-the-mask-20100702-zu6d.html N. Pepperell (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What office?

The infobox reads "Assumed office 24 June 2010". What is the office, who appointed him, where is the date officially noted and where is the reliable source for all of this? Melburnian (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

These sorts of cases are not like formal appointments to official offices. On the day a person becomes the PM, whoever is their spouse/partner ceases being just the spouse of a politician, and automatically becomes the spouse/partner of the PM. Just as Michelle Obama became First Lady of the USA at the moment her husband became President. She wasn't sworn in to anything, there was no formal document issued, there was no proclamation, yet everybody accepts she is the US First Lady, when the day before Obama's inauguration she was not. Gillard has said Tim Mathieson is her partner; she became PM on 24 June, so on that day he became the PM's partner. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, but I still believe that the specific wording "assumed office" is misleading for the partner or spouse of any Australian PM. Melburnian (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Assumed office" for a partner is a ridiculous concept. Should be removed. Interested readers can easily link to Julia Gillard for that detail. HiLo48 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Once you accept that Mathieson somehow merits an article because of who he dates, then the nonsense about "assumed office" follows logically. Mathieson has an article because of his circumstances rather than what he done and it is only reasonable that people will wnat to know when his circumstances changed.

If we accept that the "spouse of the prime minister" is a position equivalent to the US first lady (which is very dubious IMO) people will want to know when this person held this position and to have this presented in an easy-to-find way (i.e. in the infobox). It is hard to complain about wording such as "assumed office" when assuming that "office" is the only reason the article exists! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But Mathieson has not assumed any office. Let's not surrender to a poor template. Modify it to reflect what has actually happened to him, or simply highlight the date in the lead (which should happen anyway). HiLo48 (talk)

By the logic of the wording of the current infobox we could rewrite the lead as Timothy Raymond Mathieson is an Australian real estate agent who assumed the office of Partner of the 27th Prime Minister of Australia on the 24 June 2010 - nonsense indeed.Melburnian (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we create an infobox that is NOT to do with holding office but to do with the person being of clear public interest, eg. for being the spouse of a high office holder. Even in the US I doubt the fact that Michelle Obama "assumed office" on such and such a date has any legal or official basis. It's more likely an articificial Wikipedia construct. For now, agree to simply get rid of the "assumed office date" slot in the template. Donama (talk) 02:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

These officeholder infoboxes associated with the PM's spouse go back as far as Dame Mary Cook. Most of them were added by User:Wikistar2 who is now a blocked sockpuppet. See [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. If there is consensus that this is not a recognised "office" then there could be a case to remove ALL such infoboxes (not just Timmy), or at least replace them with the more appropriate "infobox person". I do have a problem with the current infobox, affording them a status similar to the US First lady, when no such status exists. WWGB (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A more suitable infobox example is the one used for Laureen Harper (excluding the excessive detail). Melburnian (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article in yesterday's press: When a country votes in a prime minister, do they also elect their spouse? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've teaked the infobox so that the wording of "assumed office" is not auto-generated. Melburnian (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Melburnian. That's a good solution. HiLo48 (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Drink driving offence giving undue weight to one aspect of his life

Hi all, just to note that two snippets of information about Mathieson were added to the article then removed due to WP:UNDUE. That this information gives undue weight to aspects of Mathieson's life is more or less a WP:CONSENSUS so please discuss the issue here on the talk page first if you disagree, rather than editing the page. Donama (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• On 16 May 2003 Mathieson was arrested by police for drink-driving with a blood alcohol reading of 0.211 percent after colliding with the carport of a house. Mathieson was banned from driving for 16 months after the accident.
• Mathieon's former wife, Diane Stark, said she "stood unsuccessfully for the Liberals in the Victorian Parliament."
• Source for both: Weston, Paul (1 August 2010). "Speeding Tim Mathieson was also a drink-driver". dailytelegraph.com.au. Retrieved 1 August 2010.

I personally would go further for the second bit of information to say it could never belong here in Mathieson's article, only ever in his ex-wife, Stark's, if she became notable. Donama (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Prostate Gaff

Tim Mathieson's ribald remark about prostate cancer testing to a gathering of international cricketers. He counselled that digital examinations were the only sure-fire way to get a correct reading on the state of the prostate. We can get a blood test for it, but the digital examination is the only true way to get a correct reading on your prostate, so make sure you go and do that, and perhaps look for a small, female, Asian doctor is probably the best way. Had he had made this comment after his partner proposed anti-discrimination legislation becomes law there might even be grounds for his prosecution.

Mathieson said his comments were aimed at raising awareness about prostate cancer and the need for men to get regular checks. "It was meant as a joke and on reflection I accept it was in poor taste," he said in a brief statement issued by the Prime Minister's office. "I apologise for any offence caused." + Mathieson said his comments were aimed at raising awareness about prostate cancer and the need for men to get regular checks. It was meant as a joke and on reflection I accept it was in poor taste, he said in a brief statement issued by the Prime Minister's office. I apologise for any offence caused. Purrum (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to make any comments about rectal exams without offending somebody, and joking about them is one way of handling them. Tim has been a strong advocate for men's health and other issues, and I think it belongs here, with appropriate balance. Trying to bring Gillard into it is not on. She responded when pressed and it is clear it is non-notable for her. Perhaps they had words about it later, perhaps Tim speaks from experience. It is not for us to make heavy-handed speculations about his appointments with small Asian females. --Pete (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that the proposed anti-discrimination legislation will be re-written the gaff has restored the right for free speech in this country Purrum (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Your misspelling of gaff is appropriate. You really are fishing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wording of the quote

I corrected the article so that the wording matched the text of the reference - "small Asian female doctor". However if you listen to the video, eg here "a small female Asian doctor". A (very) quick search failed to find a reference that had both video and quoted text that agreed! Should we list the video as a reference and quote him correctly? Can we find a ref with both video and matching correct quote? Or an I being too pedantic? (I don't think the word ordering has any significant effect on the meaning, or the controversy, but it is a quote, so we should get it right if we can.) Mitch Ames (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Photo

Original

Cropped version

Is it just me or is this more a photo of Gillard than one of Tim? I'm not particularly familiar w/ copyright rules, etc so I won't attend to this myself. If someone is inclined to do so this may be worth looking in to. (Sir Harry Nessbit 04:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Nessbit (talk • contribs)

Never mind Gillard, but can we crop out the bloke on the left? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I took and uploaded this photo. Under the licensing conditions you're welcome to crop it as long as I continue to be acknowledged as the creator and you use a similar license. I've just uploaded a cropped version for comparison purposes and the original uncropped image to demonstrate what I was starting from - as you can see, it wasn't a good angle. I prefer the looser crop as it shows more of Gillard and Mathieson. Unfortunately I was never in a position to get a good photo of Mathieson - a family of new Australian citizens actually gave me their camera and asked that I photograph them posing with Mathieson at the end of the ceremony, but he was standing with his back to the sun so I didn't bother taking a photo for myself (and I was assuming that we already had a photo of him!). Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the article with the (more) cropped version. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've also cropped it slight tighter. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks loads better Sir Harry Nessbit 22:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Nessbit (talk • contribs)

Mathieson's daughter

I have again removed the paragraph about Mathieson's daughter, because the article is not about her, and - per WP:BLPNAME - it is not "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject".

I and User:WWGB appear to disagree on this: [10][11][12]. Other editors are invited to comment.

As "suggested" in the edit summary of WWGB's most recent re-addition of the material, I have also deleted a large chunk of material about Kevin Rudd's children from his article, for the same reasons. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your actions Mitch. The actions of the adult children of anybody are not relevant to the parents' stories unless they bear directly on the subject themselves. The only content that might be relevant is situations such as those in the recent election campaign where Tony Abbott's, and to a lesser extent Rudd's children, got directly involved in talking to the media and the public on electoral matters. Otherwise, no, not relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. While the article should continue to note that he has a daughter, we don't need to go into her life unless she becomes notable in her own right or there's a significant development which directly involves Tim Mathieson. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No longer spouse of the PM

The right-hand side bar says that Tim Mathieson's current role is Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia, for the period 24 June 2010 – 27 June 2013 and that he was preceded in that role by Thérèse Rein and succeeded by Thérèse Rein. Is there some mistake here? or are we learning something new about that Prime Minister of Australia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.193.142.239 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha. Yes, that certainly needed fixing, which I have done. Thanks for picking it up. Note that you too can edit most Wikipedia pages (although fiddling with templates can be a little challenging). HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)