Talk:Tony Abbott/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Still an UK Citizen?

Just wondering if anyone is game to tackle the recently resurfaced issue of Abbott's citizenship where some researchers are claiming he never renounced his British citizenship prior to standing for office in 1994. This would make his election to the highest office null and void. One thing is for certain, British Government have not furnished his renouncement document, suggesting it does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.33.101 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did this issue surface? Sourcing is critical. And no, I won't play that game. I don't want to look like those Birther idiots in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's alive and well on Facebook. I've explained to some people that there is no evidence Abbott is in breach of his constitutional requirements, and invited them to focus on stuff he actually has done wrong (of which there is no shortage), but they're quite happy to ignore that and judge him guilty till proven innocent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Facebook, lol. IP conspiracy theorists, lol. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It made The Guardian, 9 September. That story trivialises the issue, but some of the commenters insist that it be taken seriously. If Abbott has not renounced his British Citizenship, which he had through his British-born father and his own birth in Britain, he has never been qualified to be a member of the Australian federal parliament: Constitution section 44(i). (Or at least not since 1999, when the High Court in Sue v Hill defined "foreign power" to include Britain.) In addition, at every election he must have signed a declaration on the nomination paper that he is not disqualified by Constitution section 44. If that declaration was false, he will have committed a serious criminal offence, which itself would disqualify him: Constitution section 44(ii). Wikiain (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Your first two sentences are true. The rest is speculation. We don't do that here. Please take it elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) That's all true, but where is the evidence he has failed to meet any of these requirements? Answer: There is none. Abbott has denied there's any problem, and that ought to be the end of it. Regardless of how much he may be disliked and people may wish him got rid of, he should not be exposed to this sort of misguided and wrong-headed witchhunt, and WP should not be a party to it either. If these critics were on the receiving end of a "you're guilty until you can prove yourself innocent" charge, they'd be howling "injustice" long and loud to every court in the land. If a serious question or doubt about Abbott's eligibility ever gets raised in a serious forum (like the Parliament of Australia, for example), then we should report it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

My basic point was factual, hence appropriate for WP: to confirm that the story has indeed "resurfaced", in that it has been reported in The Guardian. Effectively the same story had appeared in Channel 9 News, 2 September. A [http://www.change.org/p/tony-abbott-show-us-your-papers-renouncing-your-british-citizenship-before-you-were-elected Change.org] petition for Abbott to publish his renunciation document has reached 12,000 signatures. So I think this is something for WP to pay attention to.

I have then identified the issues that are involved in the speculations that have surfaced. I am trying to assist in that direction, especially because some of the speculators are confused about the issues. What I am saying about the law is not drawn from anyone else but has been carefully checked. The speculations, so far as they are accurately aimed, are as to whether Abbott has breached the law in these ways. To note this is not to be a party to the speculations.

Since my previous contribution, I have seen the 9 News story, which quotes a response from Abbott's office:

Ninemsn contacted the Prime Minister's Office and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet seeking confirmation that Mr Abbott has renounced his British Citizenship and were informed: "The Prime Minister is an Australian citizen and does not hold citizenship of any other country."

The Guardian's story, although drawing on and linking to the 9 News story, muddies the waters by stating superficially: "The prime minister’s office has dismissed Magrathea’s claims outright." But the response to 9 News is perfectly clear. Anyone who wants to pursue this should also look at the documents on Magrathea’s website, linked to in the 9 News story.

However, I don't think that this is down on the same level as the Obama 'birther' stuff. The 'birther' allegation was made with no evidence. The Abbott situation is pretty well the reverse. It begins with evidence that he was not eligible for election: that is, at birth he had British nationality. He has then been asked whether he has renounced it, which given his office is a reasonable question. He has answered the question and I agree, Jack, that he is entitled to be believed.

As to questions in Parliament, I suspect that the major parties have a "glass houses" understanding on the dual citizenship issue. As Eric Abetz seems to have found, it can sometimes be difficult to work out one's situation. But PUP and the Independent senators aren't playing by the conventions. Wikiain (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do beatups and does not start conspiracy theories. Please stop using this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq, while I think that your comment applies to the original contributor here, I deny that it is applicable to me - there's nothing for me to "stop". The point that I am addressing, and which I think was a part of what the original contributor referred to when saying "resurfaced", is whether there is a soapbox out there in public discussion that has become so prominent that WP should mention it. For comparison, the "birther" controversy is ignored in Barack Obama but has its own article. I hope to have assisted discussion of whether the Abbott speculation ought to be mentioned in WP. I think I have stated plainly a view that, for the time being, it should be ignored. However, as Jack says, if it were to become prominent in some public forum such as the Commonwealth Parliament, the question should be reconsidered.

I'll add now that the original contributor (please sign your posts!) provides a good example of poor speculation when asserting: "One thing is for certain, British Government have not furnished his renouncement document, suggesting it does not exist." That is not only illogical but also factually incorrect, as can be seen in the letter that the British sent to Magrathea. On the other hand, the letter to Magrathea from Abbott's office confirms the existence of a renunciation document - it simply denies access to the document, within the ordinary statutory exception of personal information. Wikiain (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are giving air to political bullshit. Please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss this already back in 2011? [1] --Surturz (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Did Abbott ever claim UK citizenship? His mother was an Australian, and if he returned to Aus. on her passport as a minor (most likely) then he is automatically an Aus. citizen. UK citizenship would not be granted unless it was actively sought.220.244.76.234 (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony Abbott's parents did not register him as an Australian infant born overseas or apply for Australian citizenship on his behalf when he was born. Twenty one years after immigrating to Australia, Abbott applied for his Australian citizenship in a document dated 19 June 1981. The application was marked urgent because he had been awarded a Rhodes Scholarship and was scheduled to leave for Queens College on 10 July 1981. It was approved on 1 July 1981.
This case is a little different from the Obama Birther conspiracy theory. Abbott was a 24 year old British citizen and staunch monarchist who had lived in Australia for 21 years and who did not initially want to be an Australian citizen. He only became an Australian citizen for monetary gain. An application for a confirmation of Abbott's renunciation of British citizenship under FOI was made to the British government by Tony Magrathea which turned up nothing and another application (not by Magrathea) on 18 September 2014 was made to the Department of the [Australian] Prime Minister and Cabinet. The reply was that all locations where "documents potentially relevant to the applicant's request would be held" were searched and that "no relevant documents were found." When asked, Abbott's secretary simply stated that he had renounced his British citizenship, however, she did not say when and therein lies the problem. If he renounced it before 1994 then there is no problem, but that then begs the question of why he refuses to confirm it. If he renounced it after 1994 then under Section 46 of the Constitution he must pay a fine of $200 per sitting day of Parliament up to the date that he did renounce his British citizenship which would be around $14,000 per year. Considering Abbott's behaviour over the $60,000 "gift", the fine would be enough incentive for him to keep quiet. Only if Abbott had never renounced his citizenship would he have to stand down. Being a Constitutional issue this is held as very serious in Australia. In 1996, Jackie Kelly was forced to stand down after being found to have been elected holding both Australian and New Zealand citizenship and Senator (he who must not be named) Eric Abetz was caught out having dual Australian/German citizenship in 2010. Both these politicians have this mentioned in their Wikipedia articles and as questions surrounding Abbott's citizenship have been mentioned in the mainstream media for at least eight months now I feel that at least a mention of a few sentences should be made in this article. Wayne (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I very much doubt that the June 1981 application was an application to become an Australian citizen, from a person who was not already one. It was an application from a person who was an Australian citizen from birth (because at least one of his parents was an Australian citizen) for documents that demonstrate that fact. Normally, a birth certificate showing birth in Australia is all one ever needs for such a demonstration. But as he was born outside Australia, without such a document there was no documentary evidence he was an Australian citizen. That is the sum total of the purpose of that application.

An Australian resident who had never been an Australian citizen is certainly entitled to apply for citizenship, but the process takes rather longer than 3 weeks, no matter how many "Urgent" stickers there may be. So let's put to rest straight away this furphy that he only became an Australian citizen later in life.

He's in exactly the same situation as Nicole Kidman, who was born in Hawaii to Australian parents. From the moment of her birth, she has always been an Australian citizen because of her parents, and she has always been an American citizen because of her place of birth. She has never renounced her US citizenship as far as I know, but if she ever wanted to stand for parliament in Australia, she would have to.

The only issue - repeat, the only issue - in Abbott's case is whether he ever renounced his UK citizenship, and if so, did he do so before or after he was elected to parliament? Now, we have a system in this country called "you're innocent till proven guilty". That means that he's entitled to be believed when he says there is no impediment to his being elected to Parliament. In any case, that dictum comes into play only after one has been formally charged with an offence, and no amount of column space will ever amount to such a charge. Sure, there's a degree of public curiosity in seeing all manner of documents about aspects of the lives of public figures. But that curiosity has to remain unsatisfied if the figures choose not to reveal such documents, as is their right. Note, I didn't say "public interest".

In Kelly's case, she was expelled from Parliament due to her ineligibility to have been elected. That was also true of Heather Hill and Robert Wood. In Abetz's case, someone actually went to the High Court about it, before withdrawing their suit. Those are eminently notable matters, and that's why we report them here. There has been nothing beyond rumour in Abbott's case. Rumours are the lifeblood of newspapers, so the fact that they've been given some oxygen in those august publications does not, of itself, merit inclusion of them in Abbott's WP article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right, Jack, about what is the only issue. Although there is documentation of Abbott's mother's nationality: Tony Magrathea reproduces the 1981 application for registration of his birth, which states that his mother was born in Sydney. And the reply to Magrathea from Peta Credlin, who can be taken to be speaking for Abbott, is more explicit than Wayne mentions. She says: "The document to which you have sought access is a personal document of Mr Abbott". She is saying that a renunciation document exists and, on that, Abbott through her is entitled to be believed. The DPMC response in September 2014 states only that there is no such document in the Department or, if there is, after searching high and low they can't find it. That goes nowhere, since there is no reason for a personal document to be in the Department. If it was ever in the Department, it would have been a good idea for Abbott to have taken it home. All that remains obscure is the date. I agree with Magrathea that this obscurity is important, but I don't think it is up to WP to report it unless and until it obtains a higher public profile, such as a challenge in Parliament. However, I don't see that as likely, at least from the Opposition, since nationality law is often obscure (especially that of the UK, but also Germany as Abetz discovered) and any such challenger can easily find that they are chucking their brick from inside a glass house. Wikiain (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian citizenship documents are not "personal documents" but are held as public records. For some reason Abbotts were reclassified as confidential when this subject first came up. Another point is that Abbott did not automatically become an Australian citizen just because his mother was Australian. His parents never registered him as an Australian infant born overseas so he only had British citizenship. Abbott had to apply for Australian citizenship or lose the scholarship. It seems it wont go away and has now made it to a current affairs program. Wayne (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Australian Government and Department of the Primeminister where unable to find any record of the offical renouncing of his british citizenship, which must be supplied so he can a member of parliment. Looks like they didnt do their paper work! So since its not there its right to ask to see it.

This is not the case. Only Abbott and the UK would have any records, unless either volunteered to make them public. Renunciation documents are not required to be elected, though if a case is made through the courts that foreign allegiance was once held and has not been renounced, then Abbott (or anyone so challenged) would doubtless produce it.

This line of argument reminds me of the "Birthers" in the USA, and is equally without merit. --Pete (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave this where it is, unless new evidence emerges. Wikiain (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see both sides of this debate are speculative and opinionated, and I think comparing other people to "Birthers" is an invalid argument. In any case, Abbott's eligibility to sit in Parliament is only one issue. If he became an Australian citizen in 1981 this should be noted.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I contacted his offices several times each by webform, mail and phone calls to see why they answered my question (Did abbot renounce his UK citz, if so when) I know other people who have also done the smae, byut noboy has gotten a reply no matter how much we chase his offices. BEING AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN DOESNT MEAN HE HAS STOPPED BEING A UK CITIZEN. Anyway he still alligence to the vatican city.Jhjhkjhkjhkkjh (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find another forum for your speculation? We need reliable sources here. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable is a joke. What do you think a Catholic doesnt have alliegence to the leader of his church, the representative of god? Who is the ruler of a soverign state? Sounds foreign,and the very powerfull. Those are facts, only the court can make the decision on that, not you.Jhjhkjhkjhkkjh (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems this question will soon be moot. Abbott has proposed Amendments to the Citizenship Act that will repeal the requirement that politicians renounce duel citizenships before taking office, if they have an Australian parent. Wayne (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

how to stop changes to my additions

I am adding new information to the Abbott wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott the information details the fact he has not renounced his British citizenship which by law he must do. The references are his own department freedom of information, a member of parliament, Australian and international news agencies.

The additions I am making are under the heading Internet controversy. This is anything but a conspiracy theory because of the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet confirming he has not renounced his British citizenship

26 February 2015

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2015

Please change "Prior to entering parliament, he studied for a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Sydney, and then a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy, politics and economics as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen's College, Oxford. He was later conferred with a Master of Arts." to "Prior to entering parliament, he studied for a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Sydney, and then a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy, politics and economics as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen's College, Oxford, which was later converted to an Oxford MA." This will make it clearer that he does not possess a Master's degree in the usual sense of the term. He possesses an MA (Oxon). As outlined here, an MA (Oxon) is a conversion of the undergraduate BA that is done for historical reasons, master's degrees in the usual sense go by other names in Oxford, such as MPhil or MLitt. "Oxbridge students studying a postgraduate degree earn qualifications such as an MSc in science, or an MPhil in humanities, but the MA is simply a title and not an academic qualification." 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

continue discussion in the above section, no need for two sections Cannolis (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the Abbott Government article a joke?

Where's all the proposed changes, controversial and unpopular reactions, and fallout of the 2014 Australian federal budget in the Abbott Government article? Or is the article a bastion for editors of the Liberal bent? "The 2014 federal budget was released on 13 May. In 2015, the Department of Treasury released an intergenerational report, assessing the long-term sustainability of government policies based on demographic projections of Australia's population. In April, Peter Costello published an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph describing proposed tax changes as a "morbid joke"." That's it! Seriously, what...?! Timeshift (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a single "Whatever Government" article that isn't nonexistent or basic as hell, because it's a broad, difficult topic that definitely does not make for fun writing, especially in the case of current governments. If you want to write it that'd be awesome but I am definitely not volunteering! The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Basic...? The article has 75,000 characters in it! Three times as many as the Tony Abbott article! I might consider copy and pasting some text from 2014 Australian federal budget some point soon... Timeshift (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. But I can't believe there was nothing until now. Timeshift (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

Please change "Prior to entering parliament, he studied for a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Sydney, and then a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy, politics and economics as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen's College, Oxford. He was later conferred with a Master of Arts." to "Prior to entering parliament, he studied for a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Sydney, and then a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy, politics and economics as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen's College, Oxford, which was later converted to an Oxford MA." This will make it clearer that he does not possess a Master's degree in the usual sense of the term. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please provide a reliable source that says his BA was converted into a MA? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

He possesses an MA (Oxon). As outlined here, an MA (Oxon) is a conversion of the undergraduate BA that is done for historical reasons, master's degrees in the usual sense go by other names in Oxford, such as MPhil or MLitt. "Oxbridge students studying a postgraduate degree earn qualifications such as an MSc in science, or an MPhil in humanities, but the MA is simply a title and not an academic qualification." 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source about the Oxford MA, from Oxford University itself. It says that the only way to get an MA from Oxford is by substitution of title: "the Oxford MA is about reaching a new status within the University and not an upgrade of your BA or an additional qualification". I'm not altogether comfortable with "converted", but "to an Oxford MA" clarifies the issue. And Abbott's own practice is consistent with this: we know that he completed a BA at Oxford and he lists his Oxford qualification only as MA. So I favour the proposed change. I see that the request has been repeated, but let's resolve the matter in this section. Wikiain (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Done As there seems to be consensus for this change. Stickee (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. Is there any actual source for the use of the word "converted"? This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. We can present two different facts, adequately sourced, but we cannot then add 2 and 2 together to make four. We need some reliable source to do this. Otherwise we are just making stuff up. --Pete (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Skyring: I just did some more digging with the sources, and noticed the current wording doesn't appear to be supported by refs either. The only sources which mention a MA is 3, 4 & 5, but don't give a date (simply saying that he holds one, not that he was "conferred"). So saying "later conferred" is unsupported. Refs 24,25,26 don't mention his MA at all. Stickee (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, he holds the degree of MA from Oxford, so presumably at some point Oxford gave, awarded or conferred it on him. But even that is verging on synthesis. Can we find some neutral, supported, factual wording that makes the situation clear? --Pete (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We used to have "later converted to an Oxford MA", which seemed to me to be tolerable since the link would explain it. Can we go back to that, though the link should be "Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin)|Oxford MA"? Wikiain (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request: Action against the One Nation party

Please consider adding a subheading under '2.2 Member of Parliament': '2.2.1 Action against the One Nation party'. The former section regarding this scandal was deleted on September 4 2013 by user:Hedgefall, who did not give a reason for its removal.

Action against the One Nation party In 1998, Abbott established a trust fund called “Australians for Honest Politics Trust” to help pay for civil court cases against the One Nation party and its founders Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge. The trust raised nearly $100,000 and the cases resulted in Hanson and Ettridge being imprisoned, though their convictions were later overturned.

Abbott also offered to pay for any out-of-court expenses incurred by former One Nation candidate Terry Sharples, while he seeked an injunction against One Nation to stop them receiving $500,000 in public funds.

Alaska278 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Abbott's Views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rather than remove the whole thread, I'll take it as withdrawn by proposer. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Would it be within the rules of Wikipedia to add a few of Abbott's nuttier espousals? They are well known and oft quoted in Australia. I think a few phrases like 'locked up forest' that needs to be cut down & 'Jesus knew there was a place for everyone, and it's not necessarily everyone place to come to Australia' as a reason against illegal immigration would be enlightening and not unfair provided they were amongst some less nutty opinions and not just making fun of him. This would be factual and not intended to slander him, but give a fair representation of his 'eccentricity' and ideas. I — for this reason — ought not be it's author, but I think it's worth including. This should not include simple slip-ups like 'Canadia' and the 'Suppository of all wisdom'.

References

Videos of his gaffes can easily be found on YouTube, 'Shaun Micallef's Mad as Hell' (on iview (ABC) or YouTube), and possibly from a more reliable source found via these YouTube videos. They're really not very hard to find. Also search for Tony Abbott John Oliver for amusement and a sense of his way with English.

'The Roast' is a short Australian television programme that is also worth a look at for popular criticism of Tony Abbott's ideas. It has not aired for a while now but the episodes are still relevant. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — The Pastafarian Church (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Alternate, passive, but funnily more opinionated approach:

Should Tony Abbott's (Aus. P.M.) page include extensive documentation of criticism of and support for him professed by relevant people?The Pastafarian Church (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — The Pastafarian Church (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(READ ABOVE) Another — possibly more appropriate — approach could be to describe (with hyperlinks to evidence) some criticism of and support for the Tonemeister by the Australian people and media, and other countries' media and political leaders. Also criticism, insult, and support proffered by previous Prime Ministers (Malcolm Fraser – Lib. & Paul Keating – ALP (crit.)), Liberal Party members, and present day members such as Malcolm Turnbull.

Tony Abbott is prone to the occasional Freudian slip - eg., saying he would "shirtfront" Putin, when he really meant to buttonhole him. I especially like the way he described Kevin Rudd as "the suppository of all wisdom". But are they encyclopaedic? And how would we handle them in a NPOV manner? Sounds like the OP above just wants to attack Abbott. I also wonder about sourcing.

But, as always, our touchstone is Kevin Rudd's earwax-munching. On camera, bazillions of views, a fabulous commentary on both the future two-timer PM and the banality of Question Time, but Wikipedia doesn't mention it. Are we a repository of earwax stories, or are we a serious information resource? --Pete (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)— Pete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits that do not improve the quality of pages and enforce the Wikipedia rules. This is a S.P.A.

Of course I am only proposing this to insult the P.M., but that does not make the addition any less appropriate. I jestingly suggest such a negative take on the wnkr, but I seriously instructed it should NOT include such 'Freudian Slip's. The only reason it would seem an attack on Abbott is because nothing that man says could be reported in his favour. I only suggest things that give people an idea of the Australians opinions of him and his opinions of them — a fair and factual point — such as:

What the women of Aus…

I'd feel a bit threatened (on homosexuality)

Jesus knew…

Shit happens (on the death of a soldier in Afghanistan)

………………*some time & much nodding later*…………………I've given you the answer you deserve (on being asked a fair question)

That isn't a simple slip-of-the-tongue if ya ask miy. Slip of the mind, maybe. Slip of the tongue, most certainly not.

The man's a nut-job, you oughtn't try to white-wash his idiocy when it shows. I'm just suggesting someone faithfully report him, not as negatively as I write, but an accurate representation of his views (dated to avoid confusion when a conflict arises). The only reason it seems to insult him is any sane person would come to that conclusion after seeing him a few seconds. What a nut-case. B.T.W. this is not a single purpose account. I have only been in possession of it awhile and have recently seen some bumbling dck on the tele and decided the internet ought to document it. ALthough, it is kind-of nice having my own special title at the end. I like it. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC) — The Pastafarian Church (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC) &so on…

There is zero chance of your proposed text, which you freely admit is calculated to insult, being included. This discussion is skirting the boundaries of WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Of course I am only proposing this to insult the P.M" - quotes should only appear in areas they are relevant (WP:CSECTION) and where they are relevant and don't give undue weight to recent events - the 10 year test means that details should only be included if they are of interest at that depth in 10 years. See above on WP:NOTFORUM -- Aronzak (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Many of the things I suggest are from around ten years ago : ). And you are mistaken, I was jesting. I think they're an important contribution, and I'm unsure how including his ideas on climate change is calculated to insult. I suggest you first learn more about the topic I discuss before rudely interjecting. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Infobox image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.... Following is the entire RfC discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Currently, File:Tony Abbott - 2010.jpg is used as an infobox image; it was taken in 2010 (five years ago). Shall we keep or replace the infobox image? --George Ho (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Current infobox image (2010)
• 
  September 2012
• 
  December 2012
• 
  September 2013
• October 2013
  October 2013
• 
  March 2014
• 
  October 2014
• 
  November 2014
• 
  January 2015

• Keep - we've gone through this before. We just don't have a free image that is anywhere near as good. Having said that, it's five years old and he's looking good for another few terms, we'll need to revisit this at some stage. As an aside, Nick-D's image isn't bad, but the subject is too small and the background could use some more bokeh. --Pete (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – The image is still identifiable as Abbott. Whether it is 5 years or 10 years old, I'm not convinced that the reader is going to have any troubles identifying Abbott in said image. It's fine as it is. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Yeah, none of the others are as good, and it's not as though he's changed hugely in five years. Obviously if a new, free image became available that didn't have any of the odd expressions/lighting that the current alternatives have, then we'd revisit. (Although - "looking good for another few terms"? Lol.) Frickeg (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The current one has a solid black outline making the face stand out - None of the others are framed with just his face on a plain background. The crop of the photo from March 2014 leaves part of a lamp in the frame. The infobox on Julia Gillard and Paul Keating have black backgrounds - Kevin Rudd infobox has framed plain background and John Howard has an out of focus flag. The one in use seems consistent with the other ones in infoboxes of political leaders. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, per Rudd's DFAT photo, cropping this one to just the members of cabinet wouldn't be bad for the article. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On Flickr, this is a good photo but it's ND and can't be cropped or used on commons. -- Aronzak (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• March 2014 image For infobox, we should use the most current image that is available and allows easy identification. January 2015 isn't good unless it could be cropped in to the face, while November 2014 looks like a low-quality candid that de-contextualizes Abbot by placing him in front of the PRC flag. March 2014 is the most current image that meets some minimum standard of quality. LavaBaron (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: I added the cropped version for your pleasure. George Ho (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

After observing the cropped version of the most recent image, I maintain my !vote for March 2014 as Abbott's face appears to be contorted in an unnatural expression that may not be representative of his face normally. LavaBaron (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@LavaBaron and Wikimandia: October 2014 image is added. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Yikes not a flattering picture at all. Doesn't Australia put out an official portrait? I'm somewhat surprised. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

An official portrait of him is under Crown Copyright, so we can't post it here. --George Ho (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Just in case, here is the official portrait. --George Ho (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Replace with March 2014 - it's not so much that he's aged, but this one has better lighting and he's looking directly at the camera. (summoned by bot) —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

There are few photographers who would agree that harsh close-range on-camera flash is "better lighting", especially for a portrait. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sure looks blitzed in October 2014. They're all terrible so I vote we use the worst one to protest the Crown copyright: November 2014.jpg Looks like a passport photo reject. He looks positively radioactive in September 2012. He looks like a real politician in Current infobox image so must be phony. Can we have no photo? Alec Station (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Replace October 2013 or March 2014. The current image is very dark, making the edges blur. The October 2013 is very light on a dark background and is thus clear March is dark edged on a light background and is clear. SPACKlick (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• The Pastafarian Church changed the current 2010 image to the 2012 image. Fortunately, I reverted it, but this may indicate he prefers either 2010 or 2012 image. I am waiting his response. --George Ho (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ASSUME GOOD FAITH! Nah mate, ya don't say? Yes, I prefer the 2012 image. For my reasons you could read the bit I wrote in my reason for changing it. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The September one? I forgot there is more than one 2012 image. --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I think something about it is a little creepy but still it's the nicest image of him and I believe best fits the image he tries to make of himself (far more friendly, outdoorsy, normal decent (top) bloke) which surely cannot be against the Wikipedia guidelines. Also in that other image he strikes me as looking a tad dim which isn't the best for a biography. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The image that currently exists is the best image of Tony Abbott, and the only people trying to remove it are removing it because they don't like the fact there's a good image of Abbott on his Wikipedia page. The Pastafarian Church, please do not lie about your intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.159.167 (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/your-pm/tony-abbott-official.jpg is the nicest image of Abbott (best however, not. I think only one of the Cheshire Cat smiles can be considered the best representation of the Tonemeister), and would suggest it be used, but Georgy Boy said it would be a violation of copyright. I suggested the one I did because I think it looks the second least creepy, after the present one, but I don't believe the present one is good because his pained expression makes him look a bit thick. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgy Boy, are you super sure the above pic can't be used? It's really quite a nice photo and still in-keeping with the official-look. Not enough aussie flags though… :D The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, is your old name Gh87 from g-7th & h-8th? The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, a photo from the official website is under Crown Copyright, so we can't upload it because we already have free images of his grin slimy smiles (*sarcasm*). --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ick, none of them are particularly flattering images, and the current "dark" one looks like something you'd see in an attack ad on TV, accompanied by an annoying "buzzer" sound. His cheesy grin in all of the others except the Jan '15 one is slightly disturbing and likely to frighten small children, and the Jan '15 one is a bit too small and blurry to use at anything other than very small resolutions. Has someone tried contacting the PM's office to see if a better quality picture can be obtained. I'm sure he'd be delighted to pose in front of a flag for us. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: I uploaded a newer version of the Jan '15 headshot. Still blurry. Would it change your mind? --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The only reason someone could interpret the current image as an "attack ad" is because of the black background and a lack of smile. Try colouring in the background with white. We shouldn't replace a photo when we already have one of such unbeatable high quality. As has been said on other pages and by other editors, I really struggle to imagine someone finding a free image better than the one currently being used. By all means, find/upload photos of him if you think they're better, but I highly doubt it. None of the images on this talk page so far come anywhere close. Timeshift (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh… Lankiveil didn't interpret it — or suggest anyone might — as an attack ad. Lankiveil only said they'd expect it from an attack ad. BIG difference. The Pastafarian Church (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Current one's better IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 00:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Smiles

As an aside, it's good to see a gallery of photos available for comparison. Thanks, George Ho , well done. I'm struck by the smile TA shows in most of them. A grimace rather than a grin. So cheesy and fake. The only one of them worth a hoot is September 2012 - the real Tony (™ JG). --Pete (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox Photo

File:Tony Abbott October 2013 (cropped).jpg This photo hasn't been considered in the above discussion and I just thought I might add it to the discussion. It is much newer and he's smiling in it and it's just a better photo. Thoughts? Andreas11213 (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

That photo is actually considered in the above discussion. Frickeg (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

how about this one :P --Stemoc 10:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Better photo" is very subjective. This one is a portrait taken with on-camera flash, and that's rarely a good thing. It flattens out facial features and washes out details. This shot is a modified crop from a two-shot here which actually works quite well in itself, but when cropped and shopped, not so much. It's not a particularly good smile, IMHO. Far too lopsided and toothy, and do we really want our politicians smiling? Check out the images for Barack Obama and Julia Gillard and ask yourself which is the better portrait. Our current image for Tony Abbott is such a superb portrait that we'd really have to have something outstanding to top it, and good portraits of Australian politicians with usable licences are very hard to come by. On that note, if anybody can come up with a better image for Kevin Rudd? What we have is quite insipid; all the flavour drained out of the man. That's one where we could use a good sparkling smile, because he spent so much of his time in the public eye smiling. Tony, not so much. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I always felt that Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Howard's images were not allowed to be changed thus why i never actually added one to their article, i remember trying a recent one involving John Howard and it was overturned as they preferred the early 2000 pic .. regarding Rudd, I never came across people complaining about the current pic used which is sad cause he looks much older (and chubbier) nowadays and regarding abbott, I pretty much upload all his images i can find...he looks weird in all of them, either its his weird smile, botox looking lips or weird skin tones  :/ ..anyhow, I added another one from September last year...--Stemoc 07:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

Change the introduction of the article to reflect other Prime Ministers, such as David Cameron. Place 'is an Australia politician who has serves as 28th Prime Minister...' gives a more consistant format; having the nationality first.

Looking something like this:

"Anthony John "Tony" Abbott MP (born 4 November 1957) is an Australian politictian who has served as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia since 2013, as leader of the Liberal party since 2009 and as the Member of Parliament for Warringah since 1994."

Thank you Jackfarthster85 (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Inomyabcs (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Capital "I" for indigenous

When using the term "Indigenous" the correct protocol is to capitalise the first letter. 123.211.182.184 (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm Turnbull has won the leadership spill

New major edits are needed now. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that until Malcolm is sworn in Tony remains the PM. --Melmann^(talk) 12:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware, we'll just have to see what happens next then. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

bad grammar

It says:

who has served as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia since 2013 until 14 September 2015,

it should be

who served as the 28th Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 until 14 September 2015,

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Orduin ^Discuss 15:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

REVERT REVERT - Tony is still PM until Malcolm sworn in

Sigh, this happens every time we change PM. Tony will remain PM until the visit to the GG when he resigns. Malcolm then needs to be sworn in. Please hold your horses on edits! FWIW, he is no longer leader of the federal Liberals, so that edit can stay. The wonders of Westminster democracy, eh? 60.240.207.146 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Added a current events tag and a note in the first paragraph that he's expected to resign shortly -- if anyone wants to improve my verbiage, feel free, but hopefully that will clue folks in. --Mrfeek (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You may also want to make his Incumbent position "Minister for Women" once he resigns as PM as Turnbull has indicated that Ministers will remain as they are at least until after the Canning by-election. PookeyMaster (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please correct this, As Tony Abbott is PM until executive orders are finalised at government house. Expected to be 15/09/2015. --60.225.31.132 (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism removal

Due to recent vandalism, I had to make this revert in order to remove it. However, I had to remove a number of other constructive (or at least, not vandalism) changes to the page as well: that has been fixed with [2].

Please let me know if there's anything I accidentally removed. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2015

Daughter's name is Frances, not Francis 124.186.223.72 (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out Melcous (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Abbott's post-leadership intentions

Please add the following to the section on the leadership spill.

Tony Abbott intends to remain in the Parliament.

Thank you. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Done - thanks for suggesting this improvement Nick-D (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Knighthood of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Australia Day, 2015

Constitutional monarchy

This section should mention Tony Abbot's "captain's pick" (his own words) regarding the decision to grant an Australian knighthood to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

Suggested edit:

In March 2014, Abbott advised the Queen to reintroduce the grade of Knight/Dame to the Order of Australia, without discussing it in the Cabinet, and despite stating in December 2013 that he did not plan to do so. On Australia_Day 2015, Abbott awarded the honour of Knight of the Order of Australia to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, for a life of "service and dedication", a decision which attracted criticism from both political opponents and allies.

There are numerous citations for the above edit. Here, the first result from Google:

How giving Prince Philip a knighthood left Australia's PM fighting for survival RamonJD (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be better placed in Order of Australia, where it is already mentioned with better sources and in more detail. The Prime Minister cannot award knighthoods, as a point of fact. --Pete (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Gaffe section or something similar?

The following contrib I added really doesn't do his countless gaffes justice. The countless gaffes have countless media articles - collectively, not just individually - and the repeated gaffes is a unique situation to this Aus PM only. I normally wouldn't agree with such a section but I actually think this case actually warrants a "Gaffes" section. What do others think? My contrib:

Abbott was perceived as extremely gaffe-prone.[3][4] In 2011 Abbott famously froze up in silence for a continuous 24 seconds in response to a journalist's question.[5] In a parting example, just days before losing the Prime Ministership, Abbott was captured on footage laughing out loud in response to a poor-taste ethnic joke made by minister Peter Dutton, both of whom were immediately drawn to the attention of the microphone and cringed, and when later pressed by the media with the footage shown, both refused to confirm or deny what was said.[6]

Up until now, there was no mention of any of his gaffes in this article. There's still barely any mention considering the number of them. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You are far too experienced an editor to propose something like this. Trout for you. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We're getting into earwax territory here. --Pete (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So this material should be removed from the Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015 article, then? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It could probably stay there if it was rewritten in encyclopaedic form, such that it noted the events that led to a loss of support as PM rather than simply stating a random selection of supposed "gaffes". It is superfluous and questionable to include in a BLP though.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The shortest-serving PM since McMahon, more than 40 years ago - noteable.

... who was the 28th Prime Minister of Australia from 18 September 2013 to 15 September 2015 – the shortest-serving Australian Prime Minister since William McMahon.[7]

Surely the above is highly noteable, and referenced, and should remain? The Australian ref's opening paragraph is completely about this. Timeshift (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Alstah has broken the article's one-revert-per-24hr rule. In addition they're edit warring without any hint of willingness to discuss the issue on a talk page. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried adding it a different way in the hopes compromise can be reached. Oh, check out the lead of Frank Forde... "He was the shortest serving Prime Minister in Australia's history, being in office for only seven days"... is that "negative"? Nope, it's fact. Timeshift (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"Shortest ever" is intrinsically notable. "Shortest since 1972" is rather less so. Indeed, the McMahon article does not make any mention of his tenure being unusually short. I certainly don't think it belongs in the lead. It would be far more useful to the article to note that Abbott fell four days short of the two year mark required to receive a prime ministerial pension, as has been widely reported. That is a fact directly relevant to Abbott, whereas "shortest since such-and-such" is an essentially arbitrary point-scoring exercise. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Rudd II was shorter, so clearly we're not talking shortest term since arbitrary date, we're confecting notability. Do we mention pension eligibility in any other PM article? --Pete (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the pension thing is worth mentioning—it was mentioned in the media and on social media, but no one seems very sure of the specifics (e.g. news.com.au). The two-year rule seems to be a reference to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, for which the additional retirement allowance for a prime minister serving a term (or aggregate terms) over two years, is just $4,000 a year. --Canley (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Given TA's pension is already over $300K, and he apparently plans to remain in Parliament and perhaps do a Howard/Rudd/Turnbull comeback, it seems rather trivial. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So what's the conclusion? Do we keep "shortest since McMahon" or not? I don't see consensus to keep either the McMahon reference or pension eligibility. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My preference would be not to include it. It's one of those things you can do for any office holder—say they are the shortest serving whatever since the next one. Abbott's tenure was not especially brief (i.e. Fadden to Forde), and it doesn't really add any useful context as McMahon's term is not mentioned and even if it was, it wasn't notably short either. --Canley (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Poorly written

This article is poorly written, limited in scope to one or two standard gripes of the lefty chattering class, omits significant achievements and milestones in Abbott's long public life, contains errors, and is generally biased. It needs a complete rewrite and a far more objective account. Media sources are also not sufficient for this article given the well noted and documented untruths and misquotes published by Australian media in particular. CStrait (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@CStrait: If you think you can do a better job, then go right ahead and start rewriting. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

not left ahead?:-)--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It would help if you were more specific. I.e. what errors, untruths or missing achievements are you talking about? Using the media as a source in particular for politician can be iffy, but ultimately there is no way around that (as scholarly material/publications are often not available yet). However the media sources should certainly be handled with care and the yellow press should be avoided.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Citizenship

I reckon its worth a mention as to how Tony Abbott obtained Australian citizenship, seeing as he was born a foreigner.Suastiastu (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You seem confused. He has always been an Australian citizen, since his mother is an Australian. The issue is that he was also born a UK citizen, and there's some doubt in the minds of some people as to whether he has ever renounced that status, as required by Australian law for parliamentarians. See Talk:Tony Abbott/Archive 3#Still an UK Citizen? for a previous discussion of this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

He says he has, and there is no reliable source to the contrary. There's a swag of unreliable sources–bloggers and fringe sites–trying to raise doubts, but it's all smoke, no fire. If the doubts were actually true, it would be a huge story and we would have no shortage of MSM sources. If anyone here thinks that they have convincing proof, take it to the High Court, and we'll report on the outcome. It doesn't work the other way round. Yet. --Pete (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Nor is there any reliable source for his renouncing it… Of course if it is true he would not say so. And Tones isn't exactly the most trusty pmThe Pastafarian Church (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, take it to the High Court, buddy. Fringe views need not be entertained here. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Pete- Pretty sure what The Pastafarian Church was trying to say is we do not have proof for either outcome, just Tony's statement that he has and surely that doesn't pass wiki criteria. No need to take anything to the High Court just yet123.211.182.184 (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

For a related discussion, see Talk:Julia Gillard/Archive 1#British nationality, particularly:

* User:Surturz: "Given her citizenship status affects her ability to hold her job, I think saying she is British without some fairly credible references is a WP:BLP violation".

So, maybe nobody here is claiming Abbott still has British citizenship, or renounced it too late. Maybe all you want is proof Abbott is not lying when he says he meets the requirements. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not concerned with "proof" - see WP:Verifiability. Your campaign to sight the relevant documents of Abbott's renunciation must be conducted elsewhere. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Some sources with regard to Australia's birther crowd:

• http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/show-us-your-citizenship-why-the-tony-abbott-birthers-want-to-believe
• http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/Tony-Abbott-is-almost-certainly-a-British-dual-citizen-and-s
• http://www.northernstar.com.au/news/pms-office-denies-claims-tony-abbott-british-citiz/2374139/
• http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-technicality-that-could-topple-tony-abbott-20150605-ghho67.html
• http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/wyeth-the-birther-barrier-is-holding-parliament-back/5744556

--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

ABC is a government controlled broadcaster. The others are just publications allowed under free speech. Nothing is really a credible source without one's reasoning—something you lot seem to be in want of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.200.157.219 (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Early life and family: Wrong bio?

Hi. More than half the information in the section Early life and family is about Dick, Tony's father. Something went wrong here? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Titles, styles and honours

I propose removing the titles and styles, for the reasons that have been agreed in Talk:Malcolm Turnbull#Titles and styles. Wikiain (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It is only useful when reliable sources use different names to refer to the same person. For example. Edward VIII was variously referred to in his adult life as the Prince of Wales, Edward VIII and the Duke of Windsor. Tony Abbott has always been Tony Abbott. TFD (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it, the consensus is pretty clear. --Canley (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Infobox image

• 
  Current image
• 
  September 2014

Now that Abbott is no longer the Prime Minister, perhaps other images at /Archive 3#Infobox image can be used, but consensus wouldn't agree to that. Therefore, I'm proposing the September 2014 image, which is a cropped image of his picture with Modi, the Indian PM. Fine with the current image or the newer image? --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not this again. Im more likely to win the lotto than a better image appearing. Timeshift (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine with the current image. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Also agree with the current image. Wikiain (talk)

I also prefer the current image—it's well composed, Abbott isn't doing his awkward smirk, it looks more serious and statesman-like. The Gillard one taken at the same event is also good. I don't know why these proposals to "update" these images with more recent but poorer quality photos keep popping up every few weeks. --Canley (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Any proposed new image would have to be utterly fantastic to be an improvement upon the current one.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Also agree with the current one. Can't see a need for it to be changed unless his hair turns grey or his appearance is otherwise altered. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The pose and facial expression of the current image are definitely better.  But is there any way it could be brightened a little to get rid of some of that shadow?
Richard27182 (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above user, Richard27182. The current image is 100 times better than the alternative option, however I do agree in that the current image needs to be lightened a little bit to make it suitable. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Photographing pollies can be terribly tricky: "Parliament House press gallery photographer Alex Ellinghausen reveals what it's like to watch Australia's political leaders through a lens", Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 2015. Wikiain (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Angry Liberal MPs question Tony Abbott 'resistance movement'

News article. Until now we've not added contributions on the divisions within the post-Abbott Liberal government. But the articles seem to keep coming. At what point should we consider it notable for inclusion? Timeshift (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks to be a continuation of a long-running lunch group. Since when are factional meals notable? --Pete (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you reading the whole article or just bits of it? There are reports that numerous Liberal MPs are concerned about the so-called "resistance movement", have made other various negative comments, and an apparent inability of the conservatives to move on from the Tony Abbott era. This article, in isolation, could arguably be dismissed, but there's an ongoing pattern of sniping, a historically unusually high number of Abbott media appearances... even The Australian's Shanahan is getting in on it with an article titled "Dangerous murmurs coming from anti-Turnbull camp"... and if The Oz are getting in on it, you know there's something to it. No wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping, yet he claims internal treachery, unusually for former PMs there's no intentions on his future (enter Rudd), refers to "assassins", his closest allies are outspoken in the media on policy disagreements, and of course, that voters should vote for the Turnbull Liberals "through gritted teeth". But you care to boil it down to non-notable "factional meals"? C'mon Skyring, you can do better than that... poor effort. Perhaps you should drink a strong coffee and wait half an hour before attempting to play down internal Liberal divisions. Timeshift (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there's tensions, I just can't see anything coming from them. Doesn't seem to be affecting MT in the polls. I think any Lib pushing for a return to the ancien regime would have to be a nong. Unless there's a knighthood or something in it for them… --Pete (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be much mention of the Turnbull camp's destabilisation of Abbott on the Malcolm Turnbull page, and that had a much longer run, so might be better to start there so as not to succumb to recentism. The Fairfax piece about "resistance" is a bit insubstantial, given that it quotes a series of anonymous sources, who, for all we know, might be the same anonymous sources as were undermining Abbott before he was sacked. Either way, until people name names, it's gotta be taken as essentially rumour and perhaps propaganda. More substantial and reliable at this stage is that Abbott is openly enunciating some alternative takes on foreign policy, and this is certainly worthy of mention in an article about Tony Abbott, as might be some of Turnbull's responses. Ozhistory (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yet when it was Rudd/Gillard anonymous destabilisation it was a different kettle of fish, fascinating! :) The Turnbull camp destabilisation should be added too, however lack of that is no reason not a reason not to add this... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in this case, doesn't. WP:RECENT is being used out of context. Timeshift (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

[8][9][10][11][12][13][14], this just in, and of course [15]. So many articles! Still insisting it's just a factional meal? :) Or is the notability that a party leader was insisting on unity when clearly behind in the polls yet creating disunity when clearly in front in the polls? Unprecedented! What a shame for the semantically-inclined no-offer Morrison that he can't "shake it off" by referring to this as an "operational matter" :) Timeshift (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• General note, per WP:RECENTISM everything should be written in past tense, and only if it meets a 10 year test. An article in the Oz doesn't justify inclusion of material.

• The Fairfax interview may have useful quotes from Abbott describing his issues like his dealings with a hostile senate. -- Callinus (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'd also say wait until the fifth installment of the Peter Hartcher series in Farifax papers is printed on 3 Dec before proposing any coverage based on it or the fallout. There may be a range of issues raised this week, only some of which may merit inclusion in the body text. -- Callinus (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, a bit of time and the continued streaming of tons of articles from EVERY major Australian media outlet will ensure that even the most rusted-on Liberal supporter won't be able to claim this (and what is yet to come) won't meet WP:10YT. More than happy to let this sleeping dog lie for now :) Timeshift (talk)

I think the articles Timeshift is citing above are more relevant to the Turnbull Government page at this stage (and maybe Abbott Government "aftermath" section). In any event, any quotes from Hartcher need to be named as Hartcher quotes, as he has been an open and active player trying to bring down Abbott over the last year. Abbott at this stage is only one of several demoted ministers who may become centres for disaffection with Turnbull. We all recall certain editors (and journos) swearing blue that Abbott was "unelectable" for years before he was elected, so it's best not to get too bold in these predictions. Whether Abbott will now do a Bob Menzies or Winston Churchill and bounce back in a few years - or whether he is going to a do a Kevin Rudd and belly flop his way out of history - is simply not knowable at this stage. That said - the ripples from Turnbull's toppling of Abbott are certainly worthy of note, even if Abbott does resign at the next election and does not stalk Turnbull like Rudd stalked, leaked and backgrounded against Gillard (and Turnbull stalked, leaked and backgrounded against Abbott). But pinning every article about dissatisfaction with Turnbull back to the Tony Abbott page is not the way to go. Observoz (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"Whether Abbott will now do a Bob Menzies or Winston Churchill and bounce back in a few years" - LOL gold! Surely you say that in jest? Timeshift (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As said in my first post a few paragraphs above, "the articles seem to keep coming" - there seems to be no end of them in sight, whether it be about the "insurgency" or about Abbott's ongoing denial of reality. Such ironic karma! Many books and publications on the 2-year Abbott government and subsequent downfall are yet to be released but there's a ton of news articles, from September until the present. When it comes to post-PM material, Abbott is undoubtedly in the top few, already! In the fullness of time, Abbott will quickly rocket to number 1. He and the denialist/Abbott camp generally are certainly saying and doing the right things to earn it. Timeshift (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Mate, it's hard to follow the assumptions underpinning your attacks on Abbott, so either state what you actually want to add, or just get a blog. It still seems to me that if you are talking about acknowledging that a group of senior Libs are disatisfied with Turnbull's ascendancy, then that should be noted at Turnbull Government page more so than here..Observoz (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Tony Abbott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120330192721/http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=9&articleID=4743&class=Features&subclass=A%20conversation%20with to http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=9&articleID=4743&class=Features&subclass=A%20conversation%20with
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100312044003/http://aww.ninemsn.com.au:80/news/inthemag/1004317/abbotts-women to http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/news/inthemag/1004317/abbotts-women
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100728073352/http://www.news.com.au:80/features/federal-election/leaders-debate-verdict-tony-abbott-vs-julia-gillard-so-who-won/story-fn5a6dkp-1225896757237 to http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/leaders-debate-verdict-tony-abbott-vs-julia-gillard-so-who-won/story-fn5a6dkp-1225896757237

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:Re:Infobox image

• 
  Current image
• 
  October 2014

With respect to the accordance discussed at the previous Infobox image discussion (see above), it was proposed that, quote; "perhaps other images at /Archive 3#Infobox image can be used, but consensus wouldn't agree to that." I would propose that the October 2014 image is more desireable than the current.

The reasons are - reflecting on what was previously discussed;

• "Abbott isn't doing his awkward smirk, it looks more serious and statesman-like." - Well, in the October image he isn't really smirking, and there's an Australian flag in the background on the basis of being "statesman-like"

• "I don't know why these proposals to "update" these images with more recent but poorer quality photos keep popping up every few weeks" and "Any proposed new image would have to be utterly fantastic to be an improvement upon the current one." - The October image is of higher quality, without the shadows, and the flag in the background displays a very political environment.

• "Can't see a need for it to be changed unless his hair turns grey or his appearance is otherwise altered." - His hairstyle in the October image is longer and more slicked than his shorter Andrew Laming-like hair in the current image.

• Also, on the note of the Australian flag;

1) John Howard's image displays a flag.

• 

2) Kevin Rudd's doesn't but it is easy to imagine one there.

• 

3) I've proposed on Talk:Julia Gillard to have the image with her and the flag put in.

• 

Current image or the newer image? --60.224.1.215 (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you haven't convinced me at all: still the current image please. Abbott is not smirking per se in the new photo, but whatever you call it is an awkward smile. I don't think the flag adds anything to any of these photos, let alone making Abbott, Howard or Gillard more statesperson like. The black background also highlights the subjects better than a cluttered background with a flag or those awful curtains in the Rudd photo. The new photo of Abbott is not of higher quality—there is a lot of digital noise, compression artefacts and blurriness in the image because it appears to have been cropped and zoomed significantly from the AFP commissioner photo. One of the reasons I like the current Abbott photo better is because the current Gillard photo (which people keep also trying to "update") were taken at the same event so there is a nice consistent quality and style to them. They were both specifically taken as headshots rather than cropping and repurposing another photo which most of the other shots suggested seem to do. --Canley (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Current image; nothing has changed. Frickeg (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do we keep on getting these suggestions that we replace an excellent image with a poor one? Given the difficulty of getting good images of political leaders that we can actually use, it's going to need a really superb image (as PM) to replace what we have. Unless the Libs want to commit political suicide (or something really horrendous happens to Labor) Abbott is not coming back and he's probably not going to find anything more notable in his life than being PM. So our lead image reflects that period. The photographer for our current image (and that of Gillard from the same event) has given us these extraordinary portraits of both at the top of their game. --Pete (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The current, excellent image has been our lead image since 22 August 2010. Since Abbott became Prime Minister we have had no fewer than seven talk-page proposals (including two RFCs) to change this image to another, invariably inferior image (Abbott sporting a goofy grin, or with a silly look on his face as if the photo has been taken whilst he was talking, poor lighting/background, heavily cropped from group photo, etc etc). Consensus has been overwhelming to keep the current image in every case - see September 2013 RFC, June 2014, November 2014, July 2015 RFC, August 2015, and December 2015. The current photo is technically flawless; the only way to improve upon the image (maybe) would be a more formal, front-on portrait photograph, well composed, focused and exposed, and uncropped, from during his tenure as Prime Minister - if you do not possess such a photo, please save us the trouble of debating this for the second time in under a month.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Yeti Hunter. Wikiain (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please STOP attempting to replace a good image with a garbage one. The answer is NO. - 110.175.159.167 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2016

Add "English-born" before "Australian" at the start of the article.

Ralhazzaa (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as that would be too repetitive. It is clearly explained in the second paragraph of the lead, the infobox and the "Early life and family" section - Arjayay (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

New book

A new book has been published with senior government figures giving on-the-record accounts of the reasons for the February 2015 leadership spill. The newspaper link only gives the main reason so the book itself would be more informative if anyone can access it. The WP article merely states that it happened without going into why which I find strange. Ties between Abbott and Credlin at the heart of their downfall Wayne (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that's the juiciest part of the book, then it's hardly worth reading. Abbot and Credlin rumoured to be lovers - based on what, small gestures of affection? - both deny it. Big story.

I'll agree that more needs to be said on why Abbott was voted out, but this book doesn't seem to be the source. Laurie Oakes or Paul Kelly or someone of that ilk would be a good source. When they bring out their books, they will have the whole story. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You missed the books content. Read the link. Federal MPs stated in interviews the reasons for the spill and gave permission to be quoted in the book. These people were there, you cant get better sources. The story is all over the media and TV so the books notability is not a problem either. The rumours were the primary reason for the spill and the reason Credlin refused to stand down when asked is notable...that without her Abbott was incapable of governing. Wayne (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but if what is indicated in the story is the best part of the book, then it's coming up empty. Abbott wasn't rolled because anyone thought he and Credlin were an item. He was dumped because he was given a solid warning in February to lift his game, and he didn't. And the reason he ran into trouble in the first place is simple enough. He wasn't listening. That knighthood crap might have played in the Sixties, but Australia is well past it now. Along with a list of other things. --Pete (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

He was rolled because of Credlin. It had nothing to do with "lifting his game" as Turnbull continuing with Abbotts policies shows and the perceived affair was just the trigger. This has been in the newspapers every day for over a week and the subject of several current event shows which backs its notability for inclusion.

To dismiss Niki Savva's book, The Road to Ruin, as scuttlebutt or to just focus on rumours that Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin had an affair is an insult to all those involved who spoke up about the real issue - the abuse of power. Abbott, Credlin and the abuse of power

Wayne (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Credlin was a problem. But to blame her for Abbott's downfall is going too far IMHO. Abbott was the architect of his own downfall. To say that a Prime Minister is not responsible for his own performance in a highly visible job is ridiculous. If his perception was that Credlin was the problem and he was not, he would have dumped her. He must shoulder the blame for his own poor decisions, especially so after he was given fair warning by his party. --Pete (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There are about five books on this already out, and Savva is a respected journalist. I am a bit tired of editors trying to pooh-pooh a reliable source that they haven't read because they want to argue with one sentence in it. I don't care how you phrase this section: summarise the sources and all is good, but I get cranky at bad attempts to take down reliable sources (particularly when they're books I have access to and the editor quibbling does not). (And to be clear, I agree with you rather than Wayne about Credlin, but our opinions are not the point - what the reliable sources say is.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Time to remove the two page protections and 1 revert rule?

Abbott ceased being Prime Minister and Liberal leader over half a year ago now... is it time to remove the pp-semi-indef/pp-move-indef templates and the WP:1RR rule from the article? Timeshift (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Targeted Hanson in the late 90s

Please add the following to the 1994-1999 section on Abbott's career - it is lightly adapted from the text on Pauline Hanson's page. It was a big deal at the time, and Hanson is now not mentioned at all in this article.--211.30.17.74 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In 1998, Abbott had established a trust fund called "Australians for Honest Politics Trust" to help bankroll civil court cases against the One Nation Party and its leader Pauline Hanson. Prime Minister John Howard denied any knowledge of existence of such a fund. Abbott was also accused of offering funds to One Nation dissident Terry Sharples to support his court battle against the party. However, Howard defended the honesty of Abbott in this matter. Abbott conceded that the political threat One Nation posed to the Howard Government was "a very big factor" in his decision to pursue the legal attack, but he also claimed to be acting "in Australia's national interest". Howard also defended Abbott's actions saying "It's the job of the Liberal Party to politically attack other parties – there's nothing wrong with that."

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

How is 'please add the following to the 1994-1999 section' unclear? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Done - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 12:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. Undone because of this warning left on my talk page, - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 16:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: - help? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to undo the edit; I added the required attribution. 211.30.17.74, in the future, please note that attribution is required when copying from one Wikipedia article to another, so if the prose you wish to add fits that description, you need to say so. — Diannaa (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I clearly noted in my request a week ago that the text was adapted from the article on Pauline Hanson. Will it be included in the article? --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done I have restored the requested edit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dual-citizenship controversy

Why no mention? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.108.140 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Has been discussed at least once previously but deemed to be unimportant trivia in the context of his full bio, certainly not a full-blown "controversy". A small, neutrally worded sentence (no more) noting the date of his renouncement of British citizenship may be appropriate for the relevant chapter of this page, however reinstatement is likely to be contentious so I would encourage any proposed wording to be discussed here first. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been discussed extensively. The key issue is that this date remains unknown. But, until there may be some prospect of learning that date, there doesn't seem to be any more to discuss. Wikiain (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Political views > Islam

A paragraph on Abbott's view of Islam was reverted. Similarly a paragraph at Feminism in Australia was also reverted. There is a discussion at Feminism in Australia TP.

The section could be expanded as Abbott has expressed further views on Islam over the years. Speedrailsm (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Undergraduate degree(s)

Today I have reverted a change that increased the impression that Abbott managed two full undergraduate degrees, in Economics and in Law, within five years. That is almost certainly wrong.

In Abbott's day, to the best of my knowledge, the University of Sydney offered a Law degree (LLB) only within a combined degree: for example, with Economics. The degree of Bachelor of Economics and Bachelor of Laws (BEc LLB) is still offered. Students took (and still take) three years of mostly Economics followed by two years of Law.

In Abbott's day, they probably had an opportunity to graduate BEc after three years and then either call it quits, accepting a BEc by itself, or continue for another two years and then graduate BEc LLB. There never was a graduation just LLB.

The reference given does not provide graduation dates, but the date of 1981 for final graduation from Sydney could be right. However, it would almost certainly be more accurate (if it can be sourced) to state that on that date Abbott graduated with the combined degree BEc LLB, superseding an earlier graduation BEc. He would not have BEc and in addition BEc LLB.

That procedure is not altogether logical, but it was a common practice in Australian universities (and may continue at Sydney) and Abbott would have followed it (if he did) in good faith. Wikiain (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The edit I made was correct, he was awarded the degrees at two different dates and you can check for yourself.

https://alumniarchives.sydney.edu.au/as/

He's actually registered under two names, "Anthony John Abbott" for his BEc and "Tony Abbott" for his LLB. Bmon94 (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That looks like just what I said. There would have been a BEc graduation in 1979 and an LLB graduation in 1981, but the degree certificate in 1981 will probably show BEc LLB. Wikiain (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Bmon94, in reverting my change you say: "this style is actually also used on the page for Malcolm Turnbull". Not quite: the Malcolm Turnbull article says that he "attained a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws". Turnbull's Parliamentary profile says "BA, LLB". I'd query the comma there, but possibly that's how Sydney does it. I don't know what Abbott's Parliamentary profile says: it's immense and I stopped at page 16. (I've added it to his article.)

Shall we say that Abbott "attained a Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Laws"? That's more or less right. I am simply anxious to avoid an impression that Abbott got a stand-alone LLB in just two years, which would be a remarkable achievement and I think has never been possible at Sydney. Wikiain (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how this has happened, but it now looks ok to me. Wikiain (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This article

is full of propaganda and and goobledegook. For example, "John Howard wrote in his autobiography that Abbott considered". Why are we writing that John Howard wrote about what Abbott thought? This is extremely weird. It doesn't belong. Delete it. Please help me remove it. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tony Abbott. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413235856/http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1020354 to http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1020354
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923221759/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTppByState-15508.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTppByState-15508.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160705144946/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-151.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-20499-151.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413235856/http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1020354 to http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1020354

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) 09:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

English persons =

I think the categories which list him as being English (not the ones of English decent) should be removed as he doesn’t have English citizenship. He’s English born, not English, there is a difference.2001:8003:4044:6100:7491:A36B:D498:25DB (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Many people would disagree. If you're Chinese and then you renounce your Chinese citizenship, you could still be considered Chinese. Whether or not we call Abbott English depends on how he identifies. He undoubtedly identifies as Australia, but he could also think of himself as British. M.Clay1 (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Choppergate

To me it seems like the Choppergate paragraph would be better included in the Abbott Government article instead of here. IMHO it's best to keep the article about the person devoted to things the person has been closely involved with, and then include other things that happened during their PMship in the XXX Government article. I guess the options would be just transferring the current paragraph straight into Abbott Government, or leaving behind a sentence or two here with a link. I'm not sure the "captain's call" description is accurate either, as the party room has to vote on the party's preferred candidate for the speakership and can occasionally go against the PM's wishes; it's not like Prince Philip where it was totally the PM's call. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable call. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Special Envoy

Hi, I haven't previously edited articles, but I noticed the article says Tony Abbott as Special Envoy for Indigenous Affairs falls under Nigel Scullion as Minister for Indigenous Affairs - this contrasts with what Nigel Scullion says on the matter, which is that he retains the portfolio and that Tony Abbott is reporting directly to Scott Morrison in the role.

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2018/10/26/indigenous-affairs-minister-not-consulted-pm-about-tony-abbotts-envoy-role — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveW124 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2019

Can you change Tony Abbott's information about being the MP of Warringah, because he isn't anymore. GabeEditsStuffxD (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

When a result is officially declared. At this moment, he has conceded but not all polling stations have been counted. Wikiain (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Not so, see Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Post-election. WWGB (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Updated at time of reading. NiciVampireHeart 21:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As i understand it, no longer being an elected member of parliament, abbott can no longer use “the honourable” title. If this is so, please correct. Tonee69 (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tonee69: it's a funny system. All Federal MPs are referred to as "honourable" whilst in the house. Outside the house, and after a parliamentary career, the only people who may be styled as "honourable" are those who held a ministry. I think the article is correct at this point.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

UK board of trade advisor

Ive updated the article with the relevant citation to reflect his appointment by the UK government. Unsure if the citation is visible properly.

The citation link in question is https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-board-of-trade — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gashmak (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019

The opening sentence says:'Tony Abbot is an Australian politician'. As he lost his seat at the last election (May 2019), I believe that 'Tony Abbot is a former Australian politician' better reflects his current situation. 88.96.240.214 (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: "Politician" doesn't mean "current Member of Parliament", he's still politically active. Compare (e.g.) John Major in the UK. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 19:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

According to <https://en.wiktionary.org/politician>:

Noun

{{en-noun}}

1. One engaged in politics, especially an elected or appointed government official.
   • {{quote-journal|en|date=2013-08-31|volume=408|issue=8851|magazine={{w|The Economist}} |title=[http://www.economist.com/international/21584335-making-fun-leaders-pleasure-enjoyed-ever-more-people-satirical-verses The Satirical Verses] |passage=It is not just '''politicians''' who find aspects of the explosion in satire unwelcome. Thanks to the internet, professional purveyors of the stuff face a lot more competition. For once, the joke is at their expense. A niche craft practised by a talented few has turned into a globally popular hobby, and what was once considered audacious commentary is now mainstream.}}

   {{ux|en|'''Politicians''' should serve the country's interest.}}

2. Specifically, one who regards elected political office as a career.
   • {{quote-book|en|1996|{{w|Tom Clancy}}|page=438|isbn=0399142185|title=[http://books.google.com/books?id=UM1Gjl2icDAC Executive Orders] |passage=I never wanted to be one, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm not a '''politician''' now. Am I the best man for this job? Probably not. I am, however, the President of the United States, {{...}}}}

   {{ux|en|Unlike the other candidates, I'm not a '''politician'''.}}

3. A politically active or interested person.
   • {{quote-book|en|1863|chapter=The Fountain Kloof||page=211|title=[http://books.google.com/books?id=JxsFAAAAQAAJ The Sunday at Home] |passage=You used to be such a '''politician'''. Do you remember the debates we held in Fitzroy's rooms?}}

   {{ux|en|Only real '''politicians''' are interested in this issue.}}

4. A sly or ingratiating person.
   • {{quote-book|en|1969|David E. Sanford|title=[http://books.google.com/books?id=rVMjAAAAMAAJ My Village, My World]|page=90 |passage=Mrs. Dimitriou blushed at the compliment. "Antonios, you are such a '''politician'''," her husband chuckled.}}

   {{ux|en|There is a '''politician''' in every office.}}

In Australia, a person who has left parliament for any reason is no longer referred to as a "politician". Are you saying that someone working for a political party, a supporter, or someone working in a member of parliament's electorate or parliamentary office is a politician? This usage would sound strange to an Australian citizen, who would more likely imply meaning 3 or 4. He should be referred to as "a former politician". In the context of Abbott, he is more likely to be referred to as "a former prime minister". Meaning 3 could easily be interpreted as being an argumentative person, not necessarily an elected person. Hedley 06:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbott clearly meets definition #3 there ("could easily be interpreted" ≠ "could only be interpreted"). And of course non-elected people can be politicians - what else would you call Pauline Hanson between 1998 and 2016, to use only the most obvious example? Frickeg (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I think he is a politician as he is still involved in politics.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

An odd trio

The only other former PMs who lost their seats were Sir Earle Page in 1961, and Frank Forde in 1946, I believe. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

And Stanley Bruce.(Bardo Nerang (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC))

Well, Bruce and John Howard lost their seats when they were PMs.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Minister for Women

There appears to be no reference to his term as "Minister for Women", dated 18 September 2013 – 15 September 2015. The page for Minister for Women (Australia) also lacks this listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.235.171 (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's because he never held that title. He moved women's affairs under the Prime Minister's Office and gave the minister responsible the title "Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women" (basically the same arrangement as Hawke, Keating and Howard). As a result some media outlets inaccurately reported that he himself was the Minister for Women. If you look at his official parliamentary profile you won't see it under his ministerial positions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

hi 149.167.146.127 (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2021

i need real info written y a good soruce where to find it 149.167.146.127 (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Photo

This is his official photo: Tony Abbott official photo.jpg Đạt Ngọc Lý (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

See the note in the infobox: "Do not change image without gaining consensus for such change on talk page." I've restored this. We have a lot of trouble findingimages that are both good enough to use and can be used with an appropriate license. Just grabbing a Commonwealth copyright image isn't the thing. --Pete (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

This is farcical even for you. One is the official Prime Ministerial portrait of Abbott, which wasn’t previously available on Wikipedia, and the other - which you prefer - is one that was perfectly acceptable so long as the official photo wasn’t available. Try pulling the kind of edit reversions that you pulled on Abbott (and Gillard) on any of the US Presidents pages, replacing an official portrait over an unofficial one that YOU personally prefer. The fact that for months users did not have an issue with the official portraits being used until you came along and arbitrarily reverted when clearly nobody else took issue says it all. Back off. Thescrubbythug (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have to use inferior official portraits when better ones are available. Gain consensus before changing - as the article says. If you can't do that simple thing, don't do it. --Pete (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

As I said on the Gillard talk page, we would be a laughingstock if we were to reject the official photographs. “When better ones are available” is just your opinion, and Wikipedia really ought to stick with the use of official photographs when they are available to us. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

A formally posed portrait is better suited than a candid for an infobox - assuming the copyright issues raised at Julia Gillard, which apply equally here, are resolved. In this case, unlike with Gillard (where the unofficial one really is very good), the official portrait is to my mind a decidedly better image anyway. Frickeg (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus required before change. We've spent years debating PM portraits and ad-hoc changes always result in disruption. Which is why we put notes on the images requiring consensus for change. --Pete (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that the long standing consensus infobox photo of Abbott is much better than the official portrait of him. I have the same concerns regarding copyright as I do for the Gillard photo - it isn't clear from the poorly worded NAA website whether this is CC or not, given that their website is a mix of CC and non-CC content. The best way of resolving this might be for someone to contact the NAA and ask them to make the text/labelling on their website clear. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside the discussion on the merits of the two images (in which I am in full agreement with Frickeg, though I personally prefer the official Gillard portrait over the 2010 election image of her) and as brought up on the Gillard talk page, I have now reported the respective images of Gillard [[16]] and Abbott [[17]], and requested for an investigation into their copyright status. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tony Abbott official photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny Speech

There appears to be no reference to the Misogyny Speech Julia Gillard delivered with Tony Abbott as the subject. This seems like a large omission and wondering why this is the case.

Wider shots

I've kicked off a centralised discussion here. This topic should have more visibility and wider input so we can work out a uniform policy rather than having the same debate over and over. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)