This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Speculation by Anonymous Sources on something that never happened
I removed from the BLP this part:
"In October 2014, it was suggested that Morrison was engaged in attempts to enlarge his portfolio responsibilities in areas belonging to the portfolios of other ministers, including foreign affairs, the Attorney-General, defence, health, justice, and agriculture. Some of Morrison's ministerial colleagues were reported to have said they believed Morrison was "eyeing off" other minister's portfolio responsibilities. Morrison denied this."
But it was re-added by another user. Is wikipedia now doing speculation by Anonymous sources? No "ministerial colleagues" names were given. It should be removed. It didn't even happen which confirms it was either an invented story by Fairfax or mud raking by Morrison adversaries. ALSO, you shouldn't re-add contentious material until it's been discussed as it mentions at the top of this talk page.182.239.204.48 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
BLP Article about Scott Morrison.... NOT the Immigration Portfolio
Some people seem to be confused. This is actually an article about Scott Morrison the person, not a running commentary on the Immigration portfolio. In fact quite a bit of this article seems to be have been hijacked by those pushing an agenda by adding items to the article that have nothing to do with the person Scott Morrison.
For comparison we need to look at another former Immigration Ministers page, Chris Bowen
On the Chris Bowen page we notice there is no mention of his complete failure as Immigration Minister with 52,000 Illegal boat arrivals, an $11 Billion Dollar budget blow out and 1200 Deaths at sea. This is because these things while interesting have nothing to do with Chris Bowen the person but rather his time as immigration minister. The same rules should apply here. Any running commentary on Scott Morrison the person should not be in a BLP article but taken over to the Abbott Government article.203.206.82.91 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside your uncalled-for remarks about other people being confused and the article having been hijacked, the only thing that needs to be discussed here is whether the referenced content you have now removed twice conforms to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The fact that another article may or may not portray another person in a different light is totally irrelevant. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is it uncalled for, this particular article is under constant attack by leftwing vandals which you can quickly acknowledge by reviewing the edit history. You are absolutely correct it must conform to NPOV which it doesn't, but it also needs to conform to BLP.
A couple of points
1. This is the place to discuss the article subject, fuck it
2. The relevant policy is BLC not BLP - get a clue, deadshit
"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Neutral point of view (NPOV)
Verifiability (V)
No original research (NOR)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
Holding Scott Morrison personally responsible(which you have done by re-adding the material twice now) for the deaths of 2 people on his personal biography page without discussion is where the real problem is. Why have you done this? Did you not read Wiki:BLP?
But now lets talk about the "Sources". Quote from this article: "In February 2014 Scott Morrison was accused of "bungling"[19] and "desperate cover ups""
Clicking on the first link... where does it say he was accused of bungling? It's actually not quoted by being said by anyone in the entire article. Quote-Unquote.
The second cite once again has no Quote-Unquote reference to "desperate cover-ups" except a video link at the bottom from Sarah Hanson-Young. How is this relevant to a biography of Scott Morrison? Is another political figure a valid source for making valid claims on a wiki page?
The other issue of course is NPOV on this article.
Firstly we have this little fact that 1200 onshore Australian citizens die of Septecemia per year.SMH Article hamid-kehazaei
Is Scott Morrison responsible for those 1200 onshore deaths as well? Should this be mentioned in the article to remove the bias?
Should there be mention of the 25 or so deaths under Labor last year in immigration detention? What about the 35 People every 10 Weeks that would have died if Scott Morrison had not stopped the boats? outrage-ignores-that-boat-deaths-are-down
If this article is to be filled with leftwing talking points... and very very poorly sourced at that(glad you checked before readding as required in Wiki:BLP) then we need to also add information that stops it from violating NPOV. This may be the way forward for this article as currently it is clearly one sided opinion piece. 203.206.82.91 (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I have already had occasion to refer to your uncalled-for remarks. Either you desist in using derogatory termas when referring to other users or you'll find yourself reported for violating WP:ETIQ. Secondly, as far as I can see, the points you raised are fully covered by "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation.":
"desperate cover-ups" is quoted at the same source. End of subject.
Thirdly, you are, of course, welcome to add relevant content that is referenced by reliable, independent sources to any article. What you cannot, and will not do, is remove such content without first having reached consensus. And please, refer to other users at Wikipedia with the respect that you would wish them to show you. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all forum. Thank you. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
""bungling": the headline to a perfectly reliable source" Actually it isn't because the claim was this: "In February 2014 Scott Morrison was accused of "bungling"[19] and "desperate cover ups"". Who made the claim? Name? There is actually nobody making the claim in the entire article despite your insistance it's there. I'm fully aware of the rules of wikipedia which is why I'm surprised you have re-added contentious data before seeking consensus as per BLP rules. As to my comments regarding leftwing bloggers vandalising this article you can see that in the edit history as well as the news media article posted by Timeshift above. It's a valid criticism of some of the editing here.203.206.82.91 (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to re-phrase it so that it reads something along the lines: "according to the SMH, Morrison 'bungled' information..." and "according to whatever-her/his-name-is, Morrison's desperate cover ups...", that's fine by me. The issue here is that the references provided, from reliable and independent sources, are perfectly valid and stay, unless there is a clear consensus otherwise. My other comments above, regarding addition of further content and respect for fellow editors, hold. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Requested move 18 August 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. SSTflyer 06:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Scott Morrison (politician) → Scott Morrison – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Article about a senior politican (Australian federal treasurer) who is by far more notable than other persons of the same name, and page viewers are exceptionally higher than other names. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Support: looking at all the potential WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's of 'Scott Morrison' the footballer recieves 9/day, the basketball player 3/day (article has only been recently created and actually has a high number of page views during its existence, though these are likely nearly all logged by the article creater carrying out multiple edits and therefore should not be taken as indicative of future page views numbers), the basketball coach 11/day, the journalist 9/day, and the (partial match) hockey award 0/day, meaning that all these pages combined achieve views 32/day. The politican on the other hand recieves 252/day meaning that it clearly meets the criteria for primary topic status that "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". Ebonelm (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Support per Ebonelm. Ḉɱ̍2nd anniv. 02:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Morrison abstained from the SSM vote: please fix
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please replace the following:
Morrison was an opponent of legalising same-sex marriage, and in June 2016 stated that he has been attacked for his beliefs.[55] After the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, he proposed an amendment to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 allowing parents to remove children from classes if "non-traditional" marriage is discussed. His amendment failed, but he voted in favour of the final bill in accordance with his constituency, which had voted "Yes" in the postal survey.[56]
With:
Morrison was an opponent of legalising same-sex marriage, and in June 2016 stated that he has been attacked for his beliefs.[1] After the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, he proposed an amendment to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 allowing parents to remove children from classes if "non-traditional" marriage is discussed.[2] All amendments failed,[3] and Morrison abstained from voting on the final bill.[4] The electorate of Cook had a participation rate of 82.22%, and 55.04% of those had responded "Yes".[5]
^"Results and Publications". marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au. 15 November 2017. For breakdown of results by electorate download the Response.xls file and refer to table 2
Why does it list him as graduating Economics and Geography? The official Parliament House record lists him as graduating with a Bachelor of Science. as shown here. There's also this. Timeoin (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Timeoin (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It appears to be a Bachelor of Science (Hons) in "applied economic geography". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Where does it appear to be that? The article right now seems contradictory, with the Infobox saying he has a BSc, the text saying he "studied applied economic geography", and the source for that saying he studied "economics and geography". Since most scientists would argue that economics is not a science, we need to sort this out. If what you wrote above is sourced, it could be helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Up-to-date
This article shows what an up-to-date encyclopedia Wikipedia is. It was only mentioned on the news tonight that Scott Morrison had been elected Prime Minister of Australia and already it is down there that he is Prime Minister of Australia. Vorbee (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2019
This edit request to Scott Morrison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Reza Barati, an Iranian Asylum Seeker, was killed in Manus Island at the time Scott Morrison was the Immigration Minister 168.187.173.11 (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done. Not sure what you want done. El_C 06:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Neutrality issues
More than half this article seems to be a WP:CSECTION. Lots of the sources used tend to lie on one side of the political spectrum – its a little strange to see The Guardian, which has taken a noted stance in opposition to the current immigration policies, used six times. The article is currently attempting to portray Morrison as evil or heartless by stating disputed actions/people's opinions as facts. It uses two Guardian opinion pieces to state that government policies violate various UN conventions, despite the UN having said nothing on the issue. Very bad by WP standards. 124.148.124.247 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
You'd think it would be fairly easy to ascertain whether the policies are in breach or or consistent with UN conventions, which are black-letter text. Can you research this? And do you have alternative or additional sources you'd consider would provide greater balance? Please list here if that's the case, Russavia. Tony(talk) 10:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It's extremely easy to ascertain. The U.N has taken no action. That in itself tells you there has been no breach which the U.N as a body can identify. But the OP is correct this article has be skewered by those on the left which is why we see Scott Morrison being blamed for suicides on this article but not a single peep about the 1100 deaths at sea over on the Chris Bowen page(not to mention all the suicides and deaths in detention under him). Why do you think that is?203.206.82.91 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"The U.N has taken no action. That in itself tells you there has been no breach which the U.N as a body can identify."—I don't think that adds up. Are you suggesting that the UN always takes "action" when there are breaches? Somehow, I don't think so.
Could you propose changes to this article and the one on Bowen, then? Perhaps here first? Tony(talk) 03:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well on this Scott Morrison page we have every criticism under the sun about his time as Immigration Minister despite this meant to be a BLP Page not a running Immigration Portfolio page. I would like to see over at the Chris Bowen page a similar level of criticism. Lets start with the fact that when he took over there were roughly 2000 people arriving a year illegally by boat, and by the time he left 20,000 a year were arriving by boat. Lets also talk about the 1200 deaths at sea during his tenor. IF it's fair to write about Scott Morrisons failures here, why are people like Chris Bowen not allowed any criticism at all on his page? It's very curious isn't it.203.206.83.156 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To anon 203.206 ... OK, since both pages are likely to be hot-button issues, perhaps you could propose additions/changes on both talkpages, here and there (with a link between them ... we can put one in if you don't know how to). Additions should be brief, if possible, since they're written in "summary style". If you need assistance, ask regular editors, and if you wish, register with a username (although that's not at all mandatory). Tony(talk) 02:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
If then the deaths of asylum seekers in both Labor and Liberal control have happened objectively too many times for it to be a significant personal event - then I can understand removing that. The reason why Scott Morrison achieves more attention is the action taken attempting to refer him to the ICC. These actions that could violate conventions and so on should be included in personal pages like Morrison's, significant historical description of Operation Sovereign Borders. Such an 'operation' on asylum seekers that could land Morrison at the ICC should be on his page. Communistgoat (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Re-added POV tag
I have re-added the POV tag because the article as a whole fails WP:ATTACK. I have a particular issue with the section Scott_Morrison_(politician)#Criticism_concerning_accountability_and_relationship_with_the_media. Yes, he got a lot of opprobrium from his political opponents due to the secrecy around "on-water matters", but having a whole section devoted to it is overkill. The section also comes across as very biased since it includes nothing about Morrison's justifications that the people smugglers were using the information to facilitate their work. A single sentence about the whole issue is adequate IMO. --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer lies somewhere between the current state and "a single sentence". Timeshift (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Steps taken to address concerns with media criticism section
I have taken your comments on board, and I believe I have addressed these concerns in a reasonable way by the following:
Incorporating the parts dealing with media accountability into the main section on immigration.
Reducing the length of the coverage of the issue by removing Malcolm Fraser's quote.
Adding a statement as to what Morrison said in defence of not answering questions put to him by the media.
As for your suggestion of bias on this particular issue, I do not agree. It is not true that it was only Mr Morrison's "political opponents" who criticised him on this aspect of his conduct. If you go back and look at the record, you will find it was much of the media including a significant contingent of respected journalists. That is why the quote from Laurie Oakes, which I have left in there, is telling: Mr Oakes is a veteran journalist of Australian politics and certainly cannot be pigeon-holed into falling into the camp of Mr Morrison's "political opponents".
As such, I believe this addresses the criticism. Please therefore now identify what, in particular, you consider not NPOV with this article (and how it could be improved).
Laurie Oakes is worth keeping in. Would it be appropriate to take out opinion pieces about the media, and instead put in parts about the Senate (eg November 2013Jan 2014 as the Senate's activities are more DUE. Also Sep 2013. David Crowe wrote in The Aus 13 Jan 2014 (paywalled) "Mr Abbott promised in his "real solutions" election manifesto last year to "restore accountability and [improve] transparency" - similar comments to critics in other outlets -- Aronzak (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Also Oakes could include quotes from different sources, including his Herald Sun column from 26 Oct 2013 eg "Also for "operational reasons" we can't be told about the nationality of those on the boats. How would the release of information about nationality help people smugglers? That's a secret too" -- Aronzak (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I added the Oakes and Rowe references you mentioned above. Cheers. Jonash25 (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Cheers mate. I was intending to add that to a sentence on Laurie Oakes and shorten it, but the style guidelines for quotes regarding POV attribution on controversial subjects makes condensing a quote hard without interpolating POV assertions from Oakes into Wikipedia. If the ABC's the drum program kept a good transcript of the Drum then I'd recommend removing the quote tag and condensing comments from Oakes into a single sentence, but this may be difficult without interpolating his views. Another editor may be able to get this closer to NPOV without censoring. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Tags are meant to be temporary while the article is fixed, they are not meant to be left and forgotten for months/years. I'm removing it. Timeshift (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I noticed "in a major upset..." in the 2019 election section, that's political opinion about the winning party and has no place in an encylopeadic entry.Czarnibog (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe the wording could be improved, but it's factual that the victory was widely unpredicted by media and commentators. By all means have a go at something better; be WP:BOLD. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2019
This edit request to Scott Morrison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please replace the following section:
"In February 2013, Morrison said that the police should be notified of where asylum seekers are living in the community if any antisocial behaviour has occurred, and that there should be strict guidelines for the behaviour of those currently on bridging visas while they await the determination of their claims.[29] The new code of conduct was released by the immigration minister for more than 20,000 irregular maritime arrivals living in the community on bridging visas.[30][better source needed]"
"Reza Barati was a 23-year-old asylum seeker who was killed during rioting at the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre (MIRPC), Papua New Guinea, on 17 February 2014 when Scott Morrison was the time immigration minister.
Many Australians believe Scott Morrison was one of the main contributor to his death due to imposing improper policies and he shall be brought to justice."
with
"In February 2013, Morrison said that the police should be notified of where asylum seekers are living in the community if any antisocial behaviour has occurred, and that there should be strict guidelines for the behaviour of those currently on bridging visas while they await the determination of their claims.[29] The new code of conduct was released by the immigration minister for more than 20,000 irregular maritime arrivals living in the community on bridging visas.[30] Reza Barati was a 23-year-old asylum seeker who was killed during rioting at the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre (MIRPC), Papua New Guinea, on 17 February 2014 when Scott Morrison was the time immigration minister [2].In December 2014, an Australian Senate inquiry into the three days of rioting at the centre found the Australian government had failed in its duty to protect asylum seekers and that the riots were caused by a failure to process asylum claims and also foreseeable.[15][16]"
[15]Doherty, Ben; Davidson, Helen (19 April 2016). "Reza Barati: men convicted of asylum seeker's murder to be free in less than four years". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 8 February 2019. Retrieved 11 February 2019.
[16]Government of Australia. Senate. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (December 2014). "Incident at the Manus Island Detention Centre from 16 February to 18 February 2014" (PDF). pp. 1–201. Retrieved 11 February 2019.
September 2019 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Infobox image
I support using the existing portrait crop in the infobox, as this is in line with all other Australian prime minister articles and I imagine users are more interested in a person's face rather than what they're wearing / background details. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The article says he has a BSc. The text says it's an honours degree in applied economic geography" and links to an article in the Monthly for justification. However, that article simply says he studied economics and geography at UNSW. What actually was his undergraduate degree? Did he get honours? What in? At the moment this element of the article seems to be misinformation. Garth M (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources are pretty consistent in stating it was an honours degree in applied economic geography. Presumably that information was provided by his office so I would suggest it is reliable. His parliamentary website profile states his degree was a BSc(Hons). Honours probably doesn't refer to a high grade but rather to the type of degree. AFAIK in Australia that would usually mean he had to complete a research-specific year at the end of his degree. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
This is further evidence that UNSW offered a course called "applied economic geography". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In Australia an honours degree is higher than a pass degree and involves a year of research.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily research. It's quite often just some more lectures and a biggish project. It would require some reading, but not anything like original research leading to something like a thesis. In fact, if you did original research, you may not pass. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I think you are thinking of the University of Wales.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Article saying that two key things have been 'scrubbed' from the Scott Morrison Wikipedia page
There were two stints that have, perhaps understandably, been scrubbed from his Wikipedia page.
The first was a period at big four consulting group KPMG in 2000, where he was attempting to start up a tourism practice. The second was an ill-fated turn as the strategic director for the campaign of New South Wales Liberal leader Peter Debnam during his failed 2007 election bid.
If this is true then:
they should be on the page
someone should figure out who 'scrubbed' them
someone should reach out to the writer of the article and explain that's not how Wikipedia works and not to be complacent about its being manipulated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.224.165 (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't see any evidence that these facts have been "scrubbed" from the page. They don't seem to ever have been part of the page. No, that's not how Wikipedia works. A Wikipedia doesn't come down like a tablet from heaven. The page was created in December 2007, after Scomo was elected to Federal Parliament, and after the NSW state election. It has gradually been built up since then, with the focus being his time as an MP. If you want to edit the page, feel free to do so.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
If the media had reported those facts somewhere along the line, they would have been in the article. The media didn't report them so they aren't in the article. As Jack said, if you want to add them using the new source, be our guest. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to add these details to the page but I can't because of its semi-protected status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosechapel (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
It really does sound like the Crikey article is just using "scrubbed from his Wikipedia page" as a turn of phrase meaning something that is missing. – Thjarkur(talk) 12:36, 27 December 2019 (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. Melmann 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Bush Fire Response
Should be noted that Scott Morrisons Responses, and the mistruths passed over from the Office of the Prime Minister to Members of the Public.
- Significant Public interest and fact as to the course of his political role as Leader to the Nation of Australia.
- Stands out as a notable difference to that of other Prime Ministers of Australia and countries around the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.159.4 (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I have expanded the relevant section with additional information on the lack of a public announcement and the denial by his office on his whereabouts, as well as the outcry from opposition politicians and the general public. Thank you for your suggestions. CalDoesIt (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That paragraph needs to be thinned out a bit as there's a bit of WP:UNDUE/WP:RECENTISM going on. There shouldn't be more on the bushfire holiday controversy than there is on the 2019 election. We should aim to summarise it in two or three sentences, unless it's shown to have longer lasting effects, i.e. a decline in popularity or some sort of other political effect. The additional detail could be transferred to either of the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season or Morrison Government articles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. I have removed some of the excess detail and trimmed the section to three sentences. I have elected to leave the information about the falsehoods spread by his office for the time being although they can be removed if they are later revealed to have not had any major effect. CalDoesIt (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Climate policy
I'm not Australian. Can someone local write a section on the climate policy and coal policy of this guy? It seems he is a big fan of exporting coal and burning fossil fuels. Am I mistaken? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.233.221.250 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Second this request -- when this topic is unarguably crucial to current political governance world-wide, there is not one mention of Coal here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2770:9D0:8465:9A5D:9CCE:2364 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Several articles have been published with relation to each event listed in the above article that would be worth referring to.
Rugby attendance hypocrisy
He said he would attend a Rugby League game a few minutes after discouraging mass gatherings during COVID-19. Maybe that can be added under the section response to COVID-19. (Fran Bosh (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC))
None of these measures are announced and implemented immediately. There's always enough time for people and organisations to make plans and avoid chaos. Not everyone listens to every Prime Ministerial presser. If you hear that flights are cancelled from Wednesday on, and you have tickets for a Tuesday flight, it's not the end of the world, is it?
In a biographical article, including every snip of adverse opinion on the subject is not how we do things. Balance, notability, reason. Please. --Pete (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Assange
Why is Morrison's comment on Assange included? He is saying that the issue is nothing to do with him (which is largely true). Why is that notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Given there has been no response, I have removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
"Widely praised" needs a source
We have two experienced editors, @Surturz: and @Bomberswarm2:, ignoring repeated polite requests to discuss this on the Talk page, and repeatedly adding something they made up to the article, so I will start the discussion. Two sources have been provided which point out, correctly, that Morrison is doing well in opinion polls right now. Not happy with just writing that, these two editors have somehow done some creative work and decided that means he has been widely praised. Even the Sky News source didn't say that! Political adoration doesn't lead to good editing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If you have alternate text you would prefer, happy to discuss. If you just want the content removed, then there is nothing to discuss. --Surturz (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Precisely. The problem is the "widely praised" bit. Your obvious hero is looking good anyway. You don't need to make stuff up. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
The thing is, he _is_ widely praised.
"The political brand was binned. Morrison put the nation's needs first. And for this he was rightly praised. Business leaders, union leaders and the opposition all welcomed this extraordinary government intervention."[1]
This is the ABC writing. Guardian Australia also has favourable coverage: [2] --Surturz (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations on searching hard to find something close to what you claim (well after you claimed it), but that isn't actually in either of the two sources you used in the article, not even in the Sky News link. Why does this have to be so hard? HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I didn't make the original change, but I supported it because it fit with the various media I have read. The hard bit isn't finding NP:RS references to support the content. The hard bit is finding references that you find convincing, since you don't accept references from any right-of-centre publications, newscorp, etc. --Surturz (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Correct. I see no point in using NewsCorp for statements that the Libs are wonderful. You must surely see why. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
If Scott Morrison has a 69% approval rating, it seems to me his actions must be widely praised, or else his approval would not be so high. I find it quite interesting that (talk) has such an issue with a Newspoll showing high approval for Morrison, claiming it is a bias poll, but has not raised any issue with any other articles using that polling source, such as many previous Australian election articles, such as 2019's election. Do they not raise issue with this article using it because the poll shows Scott Morrison preforming poorly? They also have no issue with reference #102 in this article, currently this which is a "Newscorp" source too, but this one appears to be critical of Morrison. I find it interesting how HiLo can find such issue with one reference, but no issue with others from the same source which just happen to support different viewpoints to one another. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
"Bias" is a noun, not an adjective. I find NewsCorp an excellent source for the footy scores. HiLo48 (talk) 10:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So in summary, you have no defense for your apparent biased behavior and instead would like the subject changed? Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Not at all. I just find debating in writing with people whose grasp of the English language is inadequate is quite pointless. You also completely misrepresented my position, thereby creating a straw man argument, something I see quite often from those on the right who don't even realise what kind of a slant Rupert Murdoch presents to the world in ALL his outlets ALL the time. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I hope that my neutral attempt at rephrasing the section can please both sides. The Newspoll rating is fact and Morrison's rise to its second highest score ever is worthy of inclusion but one is searching for an inherent truth with the "widely praised" statement. There is obviously another 32% of the population that do not have the same satisfaction and I therefore do not feel that the Newspoll rating of Morrison is conclusive of wide praise. I might also add that the other reference used for that statement in the article (ABC News) has the relevant section merely state that "a clear majority approve of the job ... Morrison and the premiers are doing" with no clear indication of this widespread praise for Morrison himself as his own ratings are lower than that of the state premiers. CalDoesIt (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Please leave the phrase 'widely praised' in the article, as agreed above. --Surturz (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I do not see much of a consensus. As I stated, "widely praised" should not be the conclusion drawn from the sources used and additionally does not seem like a neutral point of view. It is just as easy to find criticisms of his handling, such as for his meandering press conferences. I would also wish that my edits are not reverted when they are otherwise constructive in adding links and fixing the poor grammar present in the disputed paragraph; just a forewarning I am restoring the rest of my edit albeit leaving the "widely praised" for now. CalDoesIt (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The questionable wording was "widely praised". No source has been produced that said that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
So we agree that he has been highly widely praised - and a look through recent news articles supports that[3] - but we cannot find a source that explicititly says this. HiLo is quite right on this point. It might be true, and a lot of sources might heap praise on ScoMo's handling of the crisis, but if we join the dots together, this is synthesis. Does anybody have a source, rather than an argument? --Pete (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Don't mix up "highly praised", which could be by one adoring supporter, and "widely praised". HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Paging @Surturz: and @Bomberswarm2: to contribute to this discussion after a quiet week. As pointed out by Skyring, we have a synthesis violation due to the way the sentence is written with the sources used. This needs to be corrected. Either "widely praised" gets removed from the Newspoll statement or the apparent wide praise has to be attributed. CalDoesIt (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no objections, my original edit revert was of the removal of the poll numbers, 'widely praised' was put by me mainly, not only because I believed it was obvious from the poll number but because the paragraph above was a large number of negative comments about the bushfires, but whoever regularly edits this page had conveniently not bothered to add any mention whatsoever of COVID-19 where his actions were positively. A response to suspected, and proven above in this section by Hilo, bias against Mr. Morrison, if there's no source of it, feel free to remove it.Bomberswarm2 (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I dispute the WP:SYNTH vio claim. I have provided sources, above. WP is not a plagiarism factory where every phrase needs to be an exact copy of text used in the sources. Morrison's actions have been praised by a wide cross-section of society including "[b]usiness leaders, union leaders and the opposition", as noted above. Per WP:CONCISE 'policy we should summarise the sources and use the phrase "widely" instead of enumerating each and every group of people. --Surturz (talk) 07:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
That's pretty much a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
With respectful disagreement, WP:SYNTH states do not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Bluntly, "widely praised" is not "explicitly stated by any of the sources" used. Bomberswarm2 explained his "widely praised" addition above but this is a clear violation as, again stated on WP:SYNTH, this is "synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor". By all means, attribute the "high" praise to a premier (as supplied by Skyring) or to your "[b]usiness leaders, union leaders and the opposition" by using a source better than an opinion piece by David Speers. Your WP:CONCISE policy cited is irrelevant in this context as it relates solely to titles. And I ask again, do not undo my constructive edits. My dubious tag is to encourage a discussion regarding a contested phrase. CalDoesIt (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
While I disagree with Michelle on this occasion, my single concern when I began this thread was the unsourced use of the word "widely". Attributed comments from people like Grattan would obviously be fine. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
And why on earth are editors like Surturz insisting on shoving the words "highly praised" back into the article when they are still obviously under discussion here? I am seeing some very bad faith editing. Edit warring for you political idol doesn't make it true. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I second HiLo48. The only problem is the current lack of attribution for the claim. "Widely" has to be concluded from a lot more than the Newspoll results whereas "highly" can be from a specific group of people, such as the premiers previously suggested. Surturz has engaged in disruptive editing and demonstrated a lack of willingness to reach a consensus. CalDoesIt (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
With the aim of a conclusion, "widely praised" needs to be removed from the Newspoll statement as this has proven to be WP:SYNTH and no policy given can support its contextual existence. Expanding upon Erasmus Sydney's proposal, a sentence regarding praise for Morrison can be "Morrison's actions received praise from fellow politicians and political commentators." with references including 1, Skyring's suggestion 2, Erasmus Sydney's suggestion 3 and Surturz's suggestion 4. CalDoesIt (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Going with the kick along from @CalDoesIt:@HiLo48:, I propose the following which removes the phrase "widely praised". However, I believe it preserves the observation that @Surturz: is making, so I hope I'm acting in good faith towards all parties here:
Morrison's actions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia received praise, even from some centre-left figures such as commentator Michelle Grattan[1] and Labor’s Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.[2][dubious – discuss] A Lowy Institute survey[3] at this time found that 93% of Australians say that the nation had handled the crisis “very or fairly well." Morrison’s personal approval rating in Newspoll rose to 68% in late April 2020: the highest for any prime minister in 12 years.
Please add scientists[4], current and former state premiers[5][6], left-wing think tanks[7]. --Surturz (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Please don't push this too far, or I'll dig up the sources telling us of the people who think he's done a terrible job. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Going off the principle of "Balance" in Biographies of living persons, which asks that "criticism and praise should be included", I think I will find a critical voice and add it in. I propose to bring in the early criticism from voices like
Okay. As per the discussion above, this section has now had the phrase "widely praised" removed, which seems to be the consensus view. In its place we have two examples of criticism and two examples of praise of the Prime Minister's handling of the matter, which is consistent with the principle of Balance. I've made the edit and am hoping the matter is resolved for now. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Kudos @Erasmus Sydney:. I am happy with the resolution and will remove the dubious template left in the paragraph. An interesting point raised in your edit summary as well, which can be another discussion if required. CalDoesIt (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's come out as a much more substantial bit of content, as the result of prodding from all sides. Thanks for the kind words @CalDoesIt:.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
It would add nothing of value to the article. Who cares what his (or my, or your) signature look like? HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The signature is a standard part of the officeholder infobox, as it is for most biography infoboxes. It has a range or purposes, such as (superficial) checking of signature veracity/authenticity and for autograph collectors. So, requesting a signature is not an unreasonable request, as there are those who do care. Klbrain (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Of course it makes sense to have the signature and the photo and everything else pertaining to the biography of a living person Erasmus SydneyUser:Erasmus Sydney (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe in the USA. It's simply not a traditional thing in Australia. Don't assume that what's normal in one part of the world is standard everywhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Interesting observation. Though I note there are signatures for the articles on Gough Whitlam and John Howard. I can see you're against it @HiLo48:. I think it would be good. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
See above. A signature illustrates the personality. It an expression of the soul, every bit as much as exterior appearance. It is commonplace on Wikipedia. WP:AUTOGRAPH provides guidance. The question is, do we have an example that we may use? --Pete (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Wow Pete, you're extraordinary. Here I was having a quiet chat with someone, and you turn up to disagree with me, yet again, again, again and again. So very, very predictable. Do you ever reflect on your stalking and confrontational behaviour? HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of reflection, take a moment to look at yourself. I could say the same of you, but I imagine that you have a watchlist as extensive as mine, and when there is activity on a subject of particular interest, you take a look to see what's going on. That's how it is for me. I see you jump in, time and time again, and I wonder, is this guy stalking me? I might go look up some recent occurrences to see if you have popped up on an article that you have never edited and would not be on your watchlist. Go check, HiLo. This is an article about the Australian PM, and my first edit on the article was last year, putting it on my watchlist. My most recent edit on this talkpage was two weeks ago, not in response to anything you wrote, I might point out. It's not all about you, HiLo. --Pete (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you have agreed with any opinion I have ever posted on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Show us the evidence for "...illustrates the personality". As for expressing souls, please drop the pseudo-religious nonsense. Yes, I know Morrison claims to believe, but that's not how we write an objective encyclopaedia. And I know you know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Congratulations on ignoring my comment mentioning in my immediately preceding post. So, why include it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
A flamboyant personalityA restrained, conservative soulNo soul, all chaos A soul - however you view it, and while I respect your religious views, I'll thank you not to mock my own - is the incorporeal essence of a person. A signature expresses some of the traits of the mind. It can be whimsical, artful, sprawling, restrained. Graphologists claim to be able to see the traits of the person in their handwriting, and a signature is the epitome of their art. I think there is some merit in these views, especially considering the examples shown. --Pete (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Our article tells us that Graphology is generally considered a pseudoscience, with excellent sourcing for that statement. The soul is also not a scientific concept. Please keep metaphysics out of this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48:@Skyring:The existence of souls? We may have drifted off the main path - which is about whether to include a signature. As Signatures_of_living_persons shows, this is contested. There's certainly no expectation that a BLP must feature one, but there's no advice that we shouldn't do so. The criteria that we are asked to look at is as follows — ask the following, for which we have the following answers.
Q1: Has the subject has published their own signature?
A: Kind of. It exists in published emails and, curiously, on the side of his campaign bus[1] -
Q2: Have secondary sources reproduced the signature, with the subject's consent?
A: That is not clear. I think you could argue that he has made his signature publicly available, such as in his campaign material, but it's not clear what we would call his signature. Sometimes it's seen as "Scomo" (like on his campaign bus[2]), sometimes as "Scott" (on his the Christmas Card, published in The Australian[3]) and sometimes as "S Morrison", such as in official letters to other heads of government or, in one example, to the Sikh religious community[4]).
Q3: Is the image of the signature from a reliable source?
A: Yep, The Australian counts for that.
Q4: Is the signature directly relevant to the article in which it is displayed?
A: I think there are sound arguments to show a strong relevance between the role of Prime Minister and the signature. Naturally, the PM holds executive power in which entire programs come to life on the activating power of signature which, formally, is enabled by a signature.
So the big question is - if we had a signature, which one would we use? Thoughts?
If we have a signature and tick all the other boxes in WP:AUTOGRAPH, I'm in favour of inclusion. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
My thoughts are the same as I expressed earlier. It would add nothing of value to the article. Who cares what his (or my, or your) signature look like? (Please answer without pseudoscience or metaphysics.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Several excellent reasons have been given above. It may be metaphysics, but I believe that human beings have distinct personalities, and a signature can express apects of a personality, every bit as much as their face or their chosen career, or their philosophical views. If the signature helps illustrate the person, then it is worthy of inclusion so as to illuminate the article for our readers. It is commonplace in templates to have a signature of a public figure, consistent with wikipolicy, of course. If you want to argue about whether signatures should be included at all, take it up at WP:AUTOGRAPH. Here, we follow established policy, and apart from your own personal preference - duly noted - you have advanced no good reason against inclusion. I'm seeing several voices expressing various reasons for inclusion consistent with policy, and only one against, with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the only policy noted to support that view. --Pete (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
There is no sound evidence that signatures express personality. Yet again, you are ignoring what I have already written. Please put more effort into absorbing what others actually say, rather than writing a lot of words misrepresenting them. Even our own article on Graphology describes it as pseudoscience, so stop repeating that claim. Templates here mostly come from the USA. Apparently signatures are seen as far more important there. They aren't in Australia, so let's not be led by US-centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48:@Skyring: I'm not persuaded by your "they aren't in Australia" argument. For one thing, there's no "Australian wikipedia" there's just wikipedia. Secondly, there are two prominent examples above — the articles for John Howard and Gough Whitlam both feature signatures. Like you, I'm not persuaded by the "graphology" argument. But signatures are an element of the life of a person at this level of decision-making. Their signature does something. I consider it a live interest to the community.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think HiLo has a marked anti-American bias. Celebrities of all kinds offer their signatures in Australia, and our political articles are full of examples. Julia Gillard and about a million more. If you have an example and there is no objection from the BLP subject, then we can put it in. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
^^ Personal attack. ^^ Yet again. Do try to discuss the topic, rather than me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, let's ease up on the attribution of motivation - let's assume good faith! Interesting observation about Julia Gillard. I note the articles on Gough Whitlam and John Howard feature the signatures of those PMs too. Three exceptions that prove the rule? Erasmus Sydney (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a personal attrack so much as a response to the claim that it's an American thing to do, when the truth is that it's commonplace in Australia. Let's move forward with the signature inclusion. --Pete (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
We need an article on Pete/Skyring's philosophy, the one in which accusing someone you NEVER, EVER agree with of bias is not a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Just noticed that the article on Kevin Rudd also features the person's signature. (Along with Gough Whitlam, John Howard and Julia Gillard. @HiLo48:@HiLo48: doesn't look that controversial to me. Though I do think it's an open question (above) as to which signature should be used.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
At no point have I said it would be controversial. Just pointless. Why do I that find people who disagree with me on talk pages so often use straw man arguments? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS negates your argument anyway HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Ha. I hadn't read that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before. That argument is used a lot, now I'm aware of it. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Why is it recommended? It seems like sheer trivia to me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak as to why editors over there added it, but I would say it is useful. For example, if someone receives a letter claiming to be from Morrison, they can check the signature. Or if there is a news story that publishes something allegedly signed by Morrison. Or if someone wants to check an autographed item they're contemplating buying. --Surturz (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
If we include it, it would simply make it easier for someone to fake his signature by copying it from here. Nah, there has to be a better reason than that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The question of whether a signature parameter should be included in officeholders' infoboxes was discussed in 2009. It did not reach a consensus but it's worth a read to see the arguments for and against inclusion. – Teratix₵ 06:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. Had a look. Saw no convincing reason to include a signature. Saw a lot of utter rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Has anybody got a link to a signature image we can use so it can be included in the article? --Pete (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I say we try to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle process here. Right now, I'm going to say we've had the discussion about signatures, we haven't persuaded @HiLo:, who finds the arguments for them "utter rubbish." However @Skyring:, @Surturz: and yours truly feel the asset would be a fine addition to the article, especially as: (1) it is a recommended field for MPs, (2) it is a feature of many senior MPs - such as Penny Wong and most former Australian Prime Ministers including Kevin Rudd, Gough Whitlam, John Howard and Julia Gillard. While there is no unanimity on the topic, I'm going to suggest that we are now edging towards a consensus that it's acceptable (knowing that consensus and unanimity are two different things).Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I know you're happy to simply dismiss my concerns, but I still haven't seen any argument much better than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "I like the idea". Ideally, quality of argument should win the day, and they aren't strong arguments. Without simply regurgitating them, please have a think about how strong YOU thing those arguments are. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo: what do I personally find a strong argument? Signatures are an expression of someone's personhood. Yours looks like no one else's. But for this subject, and others who have held the same position, it's also an artefact of power. The signature does something. It locks us in to treaties and covenants. It's important. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
We are not edging towards consensus; we have it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't count noses. We present wikipolicy. Every editor here is in favour of this non-controversial inclusion, except one, whose policy arguments are weak and essentially amount to he doesn't like it. With all due respect to personal feelings, that's not how this place works, and if something would improve Wikipedia, we do it. Don't worry about trying to convert HiLo, it's wasted effort, and I suspect he just likes arguing for the sake of something to do.
Do you have a signature we can use? We need to follow WP:AUTOGRAPH in its use, and we certainly have enough examples to follow. Do you need help? --Pete (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
"We are not edging towards consensus; we have it." And that's precisely how not to achieve consensus. And Pete, you're back to talking about me again, rather than the topic. You do that a lot. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
From @Erasmus Sydney: - "Signatures are an expression of someone's personhood." That's as obscure as Pete's earlier nonsense when he talked about it representing the soul. Sorry, but neither of you is presenting substantial argument, just wishy-washy, metaphysical nonsense. If you can't avoid that, you don't have a case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
With respect, no. That's not a policy argument. That's a personal attack, and you are now being disruptive. WP:CONSENSUS doesn't mean everyone has to be of one mind; that's ridiculous. We will now check the boxes on WP:AUTOGRAPH. It may be that we don't have a signature we can use, and you come out of this happy. Let's stay with process instead of yelling at each other, okay? --Pete (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
You're STILL talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Can we talk about Personhood briefly? As the wiki article suggests, it's a key concept. There would be no value in doing a biography of a living person if we didn't think personhood was important. We regard someone's story, their picture, their writing as significant because we believe in the value of personhood. It's also the reason we believe in being polite to each other on a talk page. We listen to people's arguments because we believe they are valuable, simply because they have personhood. In short, if you're a person, you're worth listening to. The expressions of personhood - portrait, photographs, writings - are also valuable. We value someone's birthdate because they have personhood. Likewise their signature. (Honestly I hadn't thought too much about it until you started pushing back on the topic, but now you have, I can see why I think it's important.) Erasmus Sydney (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I believe that my use of the word personhood in my post above is the first time in my life I have ever used it. I don't expect to use it again any time soon. (Unless it's to further discuss it's obscurity right here.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Personhood is quite a long and well-researched article. Perhaps we may be unfamiliar with the term, but the concept is certainly one close to our hearts. It is how we recognise each other - and ourselves. A signature is one common way of expressing it. Common. Not obscure, I note. --Pete (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
"...close to our hearts" is imprecise, emotional, unscientific, non-encyclopaedic, unhelpful language. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Shrug. As a phrase it and its variants appear thousands of times in this particular encyclopaedia. We have a long and learned article on Personhood. Argue the words if you wish, but as a concept it is something we all have. Including politicians, who have signatures, and Wikipaedia has a policy on that which you may find at WP:AUTOGRAPH. If you have a problem with wikipolicy, kindly take it to the appropriate place, but as it stands you are being disruptive. Kindly either work with other editors on improving the article as per consensus, or go and find another place to exercise your valued talents. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Personhood is irrelevant, tangential nonsense for this topic. (And my spellchecker doesn't believe it's a word.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
My dear @HiLo48:. I actually feel a bit of pain reading what you've written. You're dismissing personhood when what we have before us is a Biography of a Living PERSON. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Read my earliest comments here. The arguments against them have been that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that a signature represents someone's soul and their personhood. (My spellchecker still doesn't believe it's a word.) As a rational thinker, I am simply not impressed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
If this personhood thing is your winning argument for including a signature, surely you need to demonstrate how any proposed signature reflects that person's personhood. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Given your most recent argument for including a signature, obviously YOU need to demonstrate how this signature reflects Morrison's personhood. And no, I'm not joking. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: I believe there are two solid arguments that recommend we include the signature, both of which have emerged above, the argument from personhood and the argument from power. I will summarise them below.
THE ARGUMENT FROM PERSONHOOD
Premise 1 - Personhood is the status of being a person.
Premise 2 - A signature is an artefact that indicates it has come from a person.
Conclusion - As a biography of a living person values personhood, it follows that it would value a signature from that person.
THE ARGUMENT FROM POWER
Premise 1 - Articles about Prime Minsters are interesting because such people have a great deal of power.
Premise 2 - A signature of a Prime Minister is a legally binding instrument of the Commonwealth, and is inherently significant as such.
Conclusion - A signature of a Prime Minister deserves space in an article about that Prime Minister. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Neither conclusion is valid. And please learn to indent correctly. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Thank you for pointing out the need for correct indenting. I have amended appropriately. The arguments however remain in place as you've simply made a negative assertion, and not actually engaged. Indeed, I believe the onus is now on you to build an anti-signature consensus. Do you have any other editors who support your views? Erasmus Sydney (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@HiLo48: We can keep the discussion going, but as @Skyring: and others have pointed out, we already have a consensus that the signature would be a good addition to the article, so that will go ahead. If you want to talk about validity of syllogisms, that's okay. But I sense the whole discussion has come to a conclusion. As mentioned, I found it really interesting, and I'm grateful for you making me think it through. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
"you've simply made a negative assertion, and not actually engaged" I have responded far more than I think you wanted me too. Souls and personhood are crappy arguments. If they are good arguments, relate them to the signature you are proposing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This edit request to Scott Morrison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
He shit himself in 1997 at a McDonald's Slipkugget (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KRtau16 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Challenge of foreign influence and the manipulated image
New material has emerged on this article surrounding the subject's interactions with China, currently centring on the moment when Zhao Lijian posted an image causing offence to the Australian government, particularly its defence community. Two things to say here.
1. Matters to do with sovereignty, the move towards containing foreign influence, and the repositioning of Australia's armed forces to directly meet a threat from the north has been one of the two main features of the second term (the other feature being the management of COVID-19). I strongly other editors to share ideas or simply to start building.
2. On one small matter, would like to share why I believe "doctored image" is the correct term to use when describing the event. With other editors over at the Zhao Lijian talk page, the survey of the reliable sources has been done and here's what we found:
Artwork/computer graphic/computer-generated image/digital illustration/cartoon/digitally created
WaPo "doctored image,” "graphic, computer-generated illustration,” “image,” "an illustration,” “artwork’s,” " artwork appeared to be a heavily manipulated composite of a photograph and stylized digital illustration,” “picture,” *
MamaMia "doctored photo,” "doctored photo,” "fake image," (note that this piece discusses both the image and the cartoon of the Kangaroo which appears to have caused some confusion)
WaPo "doctored image,” "graphic, computer-generated illustration,” “image,” "an illustration,” “artwork’s,” " artwork appeared to be a heavily manipulated composite of a photograph and stylized digital illustration,” “picture,” *
ABC "doctored image,” "doctored image,” “image,” (we also have "controversial computer graphic” but its credited to the Global Times)
Yahoo "confronting new image,” "provocative fake Australian soldier image,” “image,” "Australian-related artwork,” “image,” “image,” “image,” *
The image IS a computer generated graphic. Take a hard look at it.
Morrison's government started this all by calling it "fake image", which is certainly a POV, similarly as Trump would call some news "fake news".
Calling the image as "fake" or "doctored image" is strongly POV, from both a grammatical perspective (subjective words "fake" "doctored" -- demands context on what would be "real" in comparison) and when compared to other similar contentious sources (such as Guernica and Charlie Hebdo 's cartoons, both of which are used in similar contexts but are not called "fake/doctored image"). Therefore it should not be used as a direct description.
As long as there are alternative neutral terms available in reliable sources, they should be used. Here alternative terms used are Artwork/computer graphic/computer-generated image/digital illustration/cartoon/digitally created, so they should be preferentially used. "Computer graphic" is a neutral generic term, and many of the above sources also credit the author as a computer graphic artist.
If there are many sources citing the biased term, it only adds to WP:DUE, and should not cloud our judgement on which term(s) are more, or less objective. Even when citing reliable sources from WP:RSP, there are times in which the (biased) political standpoint of the sources require attributions, such as when talking about the US election. This also applies here.
The issue can be addressed by objective statements such as "The image is a computer graphic/digitally generated image/...[ref] created by Chinese artist Wuheqilin ...(but)has been criticized as a "fake" or "doctored" image by many news outlets [ref]", referring to the image itself "computer graphics" "digitally generated" or any other neutral descriptors as mentioned above, rather than "fake/doctored image", in-text.
The corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia gives an objective account of the incident; its style can be used for reference.
@Newfraferz87: and, for good measure, my response:
I think I follow your argument. It does leave us in the unusual situation where you're saying the great majority of news sources (so far) on this topic are not to be used as they don't satisfy NPOV. That is, to put it politely, a big call.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Newfraferz87: just one other thing, if we go with your logic, we'd change the descriptor to "computer graphic." The source of that phrase is a double conundrum. First, because it's the phrase used by and, I believe, originated with Global Times. That is awkward because the platform is controlled by the Communist Party of China, the very same people who Mr Zhao works for, so, not really a balanced or reliable source. In fact, I think it's regarded as a deprecated source on these pages. But perhaps you can find a source that isn't deprecated. Second it's the descriptor used by the person who created the image, so that, or rather, he, would not be a good secondary source either. Do you see the problem? The Little Platoon (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@The Little Platoon: How is it a problem? If the item in question looks like a spade, the person who crafted it calls it a spade, and some established media already call it a spade, why would anyone go to far lengths to try to call it something else, unless there is a political agenda? Here Global Times call the image as it is, "computer graphics". SCMP states the same with "digitally created image".
At the end of the day the goal here on Wikipedia is to present the descriptor most objectively, not to fight political battles. I believe "computer graphics" is suitable, regardless whether Global Times say the same, because the image literally looks like computer graphics. If you're not agreeable to "computer graphics", there are sources here that call the image other similar neutral terms (such as SCMP's "digitally created image") that can easily be substituted. The current descriptors "fake"/"doctored" are blatant POV and unacceptable. NoNews! 09:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Newfraferz87: Your use of forceful adjectives suggest you're getting upset. Me, I'm sticking to the rules. We use the predominant descriptor provided by reputable sources. Sorry, you haven't convinced me at all. Not that your appeals to the Global Times helped a lot. And I haven't seen any other editor change their mind either. If you want to take it to the next step, I recommend you move to dispute resolution. Good luck.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@The Little Platoon: Whether or not you want to be convinced, the problem that there is a POV in the terms "fake/doctored image" still objectively exists, and your resolution in sticking to the rules only suggests that you are content to ignore or disregard that problem -- in other words, you have also failed to convince me that the POV issue I noted is actually not a problem. To your I haven't seen any other editor change their mind either, there has not been any other editors contributing to this talk page since -- not to mention that the discussion is still ongoing at Talk:Zhao Lijian, so obviously it's too early and premature for you to conclude that you have the consensus on your side. I will continue to discuss and argue for objective representation on Wikipedia. It's fine if you want to leave this discussion, considering that you have made your standpoint clear enough. NoNews! 13:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@Newfraferz87: oh, I'll absolutely stay involved. I'm very interested to see if you come up with a new argument. Right now the base line is that, across all articles, the practice is to turn to reliable sources for our material. We have 22 reliable sources using the phrase "doctored" / "fake" / "manipulated". I hear very clearly that you believe, personally, that these are loaded terms. You may be right. And perhaps, in your own personal articles and essays you should use a different term. But here on wikipedia we turn to reliable sources.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Point of resolution regarding content on Zhao Lijian, Australia and the manipulated image
There’s been extensive discussion about the digitally manipulated image depicting an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child above. I thank @Calton:@Amigao:@Andykatib:@Acalycine:@Tobby72:@Lewix:@Newfraferz87:@PailSimon:@Horse Eye's Back: for their respective contributions across a number of articles which relate to this material. I also thank @Rosguill: as an editor and an admin for providing guidance on where this material should live and the kind of language we might adopt, that guidance may be found here. From that it’s recommended that the main content regarding this incident lives as a subsection of the Zhao_Lijian, so there doesn’t need to much more than a sentence or two on the topic at Scott Morrison, Wolf warrior diplomacyBrereton Report or other related articles.
It may be, some time in the future, that the incident comes to be regarded as a turning point. And, should that happen, and there are enough good sources to establish that, the matter may deserve its own article. But that’s a few years away.
As to language, there has been a lot of too and fro. As at 11 December 2020 we have around 30 reliable sources and the majority of them describe the image as doctored or manipulated or fake. (I acknowledge there has been dissent, suggesting that we use a phrase such as computer graphic, which has been used by Times and other journals.) However, following all the debate, I think it’s good to settle around the direction provided by Rosguill, who suggested something like the following be used:
In late 2020, Australia demanded that China apologize for Zhao Lijian's promotion of a digitally-manipulated image of an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child. China rejected the demands for an apology the next day. The incident had the effect of unifying Australian politicians in condemning China across party lines while also drawing attention to an Australian investigation of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The incident was further seen as a sign of deteriorating relations between Australia and China
So, that’s where I propose where the material mostly lives, and the kind of language we use.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I suppose that would be an improvement.PailSimon (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
A plea here, for all subsequent opinions on this issue to move to Talk:Zhao Lijian for ease of discussions. Thank you all. NoNews! 01:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Bias in Covid-19 pandemic section
Whilst it has been mentioned that there was initial critique of Morrison's response, what follows is various Murdoch media and other right wing sources that have been sculpted to paint a somewhat inaccurate picture. A simple of Google search of the terms 'Morrison' and 'Covid' reveal a differing reality. Criticisms of poor leadership and policy directed at Morrison have been prevalent throughout the pandemic. A more rounded and unbiased summary is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarcyDunt (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I think you're mistaken. The quotes are from the Brisbane Times and from Michelle Grattan writing for the Conversation. Neither of those organs are Murdoch media or could be characterised as right wing.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
You’ve viewed the version of the article that was current. Previous edits relied on sources such as Sky news and the Herald Sun. It’s in way better condition now . HarcyDunt (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I will remove lifehacker.com.au as a reference source, since I don't believe it is a WP:RS. I can't find it on Aus Press council list, anyway: [8] --Surturz (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Title
The proposed change I made (in good faith), "Scott Morrison is an Australian politician who is currently Prime Minister of Australia" is consistent with MOS:JOBTITLES (use can use capitals when the title is described without a definite or indefinite article) and reflects current Australian usage (which is to capitalise the title, see here). See the first example in the list of examples, "Richard Nixon was President of the United States". That's the same usage. Deus et lex (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
"30th and current prime minister of Australia", is the correct version. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with the version I suggested? You can't just say it is "correct" without justifying it. It doesn't reflect Australian usage. Deus et lex (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
MOS:JOBTITLES advises to use lower-case. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
In particular circumstances, but not in the way I edited (and again, it's not consistent with Australian usage). Are you going to listen to what I'm saying or just cite policy blindly without addressing the issue? Deus et lex (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
If you feel that an Australian exception to the 'rule' is required? Then bring that up at MOS:JOBTITLES. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
You won't even let me edit something in a way that is consistent with the rule. The JOBTITLES articles says that if you don't use an article (definite or indefinite) then you can capitalise. So "Richard Nixon was President of the United States" is correct. "Scott Morrison is an Australian politican who is currently Prime Minister of Australia" is also correct. Can you please address the question I asked, what is wrong with the edit I made? Deus et lex (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll let you & @Surtsicna: figure it out. I'm rather tired of the back-and-forth stuff. PS: I also lower-cased at the intros to Tony Abbott & Malcolm Turnbull. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Do you think it is fair or right to just revert editors' good faith work and then not explain it when someone asks why? This just feels like an WP:OWN edit on your part. Deus et lex (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Deus et lex: I was planning on 'lower-casing' all the intros of the Australian prime ministers bios & Australian governors-general bios. But, I just don't have the energy for the likely 'fight' that would come (see bios of Canadian governors general) there. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021
This edit request to Scott Morrison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
After the sentence in personal life that cites Scott Morrison’s commitment to promoting religious freedom, in order to provide a balance of facts, I suggest:
Scott Morrison has stated that he sends his children to a private school to avoid “the values of others” being imposed on his children. In an interview Scott Morrison agree that Victorian state education programmes that include LGBTIQ case studies and are designed to prevent family violence make his “skin curl”.
Not done. Does not closely fit in with rest of article. The type of school his children goes to is hardly encyclopedic. His views on same sex marriage may warrant a new section but needs closer inspection. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 02:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Relevance of Hong Kong Protests, vs Lack of climate change action
Currently this article includes: "2019 Hong Kong protests
In August 2019, Morrison called on the Chief Executive of Hong Kong to listen to protester demands, denying that the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests were showing signs of terrorism."
While this may be true and cited, it does not seem relevant or material, compared to various actions/inactions on climate change - ie, bringing a lump of coal into parliament, actions at various climate summits that received widespread criticism internationally, or a "gas led recovery" initiave.
This article also fails to mention domestic scrunity of "sports rorts"; or the more recent "car park rorts" matters - both much more widely reported on than any international action.
While there is a NPOV policy and perhaps these criticisms are not appropriate for the article; I think by the same token "HK protest action" is a non neutral statement that adds little or no value. CloCkWeRX (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2021
This edit request to Scott Morrison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Clarity: In the paragraph mentioning his Political Career, several jobs had no capitalized letters and some did. This should be changed. Also there is an error with the text in the paragraph below, where it says 'in' for no reason.
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. Meters (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Lower casing in infobox
At discussion at WP:AN affecting this article's subject & its predecessors, may require input. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
1997 Engadine McDonalds incident
@LivelyRatification, per WP:BRD, would you care to expand on your rationale for removing this paragraph:
It is widely believed in Australia that Morrison soiled himself (often worded as "shit his pants") at a McDonalds in Engadine, a suburb of Sydney, in 1997.[1] Artist and producer John Ford—known as JOYRYDE—is sometimes credited with being the first to state that Morrison soiled himself in a McDonalds.[2][3] In 2019, the Treasurer of Australia Josh Frydenberg was asked about the incident on national radio and responded that Morrison was "cleaner in more ways than one".[1][4] Former politicians confirmed the incident had taken place and Green senator Mehreen Faruqi referenced it in a series of tweets.[1] In July 2021, Morrison denied that the incident had taken place, calling it "the biggest urban myth ever" and "complete and utter rubbish".[5][2][3]
Morrison (allegedly) shitting himself in a McDonalds received significant media coverage across a range of WP:RS and was discussed by high-profile politicians, so I would content that its notability as such is not in question. The only debate is over whether, to use your wording, it "belong on this page". For that debate to happen, you will need to explain yourself. —Kilopylae (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kilopylae: Yes, "Scott Morrison shat himself at a Maccas after the Sharks lost" is a pretty popular urban legend here in Australia. When it comes to the fact of the matter, however, there's literally no reliable evidence for the event occuring. I'm honestly not against the inclusion of it in some manner - after all, it is a popular urban legend. Hell, the Ted Cruz–Zodiac Killer meme has its own page. But it doesn't say "many people believe Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer". "It is widely believed in Australia that Morrison soiled himself" and "Former politicians confirmed the incident had taken place" is just not an honest way of summarising what is essentially a meme. I'm willing to acknowledge I may have been too bold here, but I think that there are issues with the content added, even if the meme is worth some sort of a mention. --LivelyRatification (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems utterly trivial. By the way, the rumour is credited to Australian hip-hop artist Joyride, not English DJ Joyryde.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Bushfires
The article should make clear why the 2019-20 season was that important.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
"Anti-Queensland sentiment" issues
@Ivar the Boneful and Caltraser5: Seems a bit ridiculous to me that there's an entire large section dedicated to Scott Morrison's "accusations of anti-Queensland sentiment", per WP:UNDUE this seems inappropriate - why just Queensland? A section like this could easily apply to Victoria as well, but as it stands, a reader would likely only know of the accusations of anti-Queensland sentiment, which presents a slanted view. Also, some of the content seems a bit questionable, this line in particular:
During a parliamentary session, Palaszczuk broke down in tears, and declared the "bullying" and "intimidation" she had faced by Morrison and his government as "the worst I've ever seen in my lifetime."[172] Morrison responded to claims that he had bullied the Queensland Premier stating, "I don't care",[173] and that the federal government would "work better with Queensland if Deb Frecklington wins [the] election."
This, at least to me, seems untrue. The source used doesn't seem massively reliable (indeed, it describes itself as an aggregator), and the full quote is "Oh, well look Peta, I don’t really care what they say about me. It’s not about me, it’s not about her. It was about Sarah, it was about Isabelle, it was about Merna, and it was about Bernard. That’s the only stuff that mattered today. I mean, it wasn’t about borders, it wasn’t about whether they should be up or down, it wasn’t even about jobs today, and jobs are incredibly important. This was just one day I had hoped that something different could be done."
It seems rather dishonest to frame that as "Prime Minister responds to bullying accusations by saying he doesn't care", even if it is technically true. The second quote doesn't seem strictly related to this whole incident - they did occur in a similar span of time, but they weren't said at the same time. --LivelyRatification (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I've just noticed that it's been reverted and restored, so I'll ping the reverter and the restorer to participate here. @BrisbaneBuzSpotter and Ohnoitsjamie: --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, now that I look more closely at it, I can see where we may have some WP:SYNTH creeping in. Most of the sources are fine, but I haven't found the phrase "anti-Queensland sentiment" or anything like it yet; rather the sources describe various squabbles between Morrison and politicians from Queensland. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, as it currently stands you could create a similar section for most other states in Australia, even if the phrase "anti-[state] sentiment" hasn't been used. Just seems like a summary of disputes between Morrison and Queensland politicians, as you said. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
As it currently stands, I think that there's a lot of undue weight placed on Queensland here, and this would need to be cut down to remove synthesis issues, and remade into a section of broader criticism from state and territory governments, if not deleted entirely. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed in Australian politics; is there anything salvageable in that section? Does he have more disputes with Queensland legislators than in other states? OhNoitsJamieTalk 22:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's an absolute basket case. The first paragraph seems relevant to Morrison and to the COVID-19 pandemic (if in need of some work, as I mentioned above). I'm not sure about the rest of it though, especially not the last paras - New South Wales' COVID outbreak has been much worse than Queensland's, even if both states are currently in lockdown. And as for the last thing - no, this is not at all unique. As a Victorian, I've seen so much recently about Morrison being the "Prime Minister of NSW". The biggest issue with this, at least in my view, is that the disputes Morrison has with Queensland politicians are not exactly special to just Queensland. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Given a bit of dormancy in this discussion, I'm going to propose that the section be removed. I'm a bit unsure about this, but given the undue weight and synthesis issues, I think that's what should be done here. --LivelyRatification (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've not acted on this given not much else has responded, but would like to ping @Caltraser5: given I've just noted they've added to the section. Seems to me like there's a lot of undue weight placed on Queensland for what seems to me like it's not particularly unique, and a bit of synthesis, given that "anti-Queensland sentiment" is not a term that's been used. --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware there was a discussion taking place. Both Palaszczuk and Miles have accused the Morrison government of being anti-Queensland and singling out the state. You can see this in their excerpts in the article, and to @LivelyRatification:, when Queensland and NSW both started having the Delta outbreaks they both had similiar case numbers, unfortunately NSW chose a different approach and is now dealing with the consequences, whereas Queensland chose to lock down earlier and thus stopped the spread. --Caltraser5 (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
This whole section jumps out. Is Morrison's term as PM really dominated by two issues: supposed anti-Queensland sentiment first and Covid second? Seems like both get inordinate space in our article. If nobody wants to cut, I'll just randomly delete two out of every three sentences and that should give us a clean and acceptable result. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking into this, the whole section reads like unsourced synthetioc opinion. We begin by saying "The Morrison government has been accused of holding anti-Queensland views" and none of the three references given say this. Not one. I don't mind if the whole section goes. What I see is political support for members of his side of politics, which is so usual amongst heads of government as not to require comment. If he doesn't laud ALP premiers, then how, precisely, does that translate into "Anti-Queensland sentiment" which in itself is a weird phrase? --Pete (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree the section as it stands is of no value due to WP:UNDUE. Morrison is friendly with Liberal states and adversarial with Labor states. Conflict with the opposing political party is hardly notable. If the section is to be salvaged, someone could refactor out a federal-state relations section or similar, and include the National Cabinet content from the previous section. I'm going to delete the section, since it seems that Skyring and Lively both also think it should go. --Surturz (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the section should be "Confict with state governments" or something like that. Most federal governments have had co-operative relationships with state governments, regardless of party.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
"Conflict with state governments" is already a WP:POV vio, since in addition to the conflict, there has been a lot of cooperation too. "Federal-State relations" would be a better section title. (BTW I dispute your statement "Most federal governments have had co-operative relationships with state governments, regardless of party", I would say the opposite is true. Exhibit A: every COAG meeting ever :D ) --Surturz (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it's relative.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
We are constrained by sources, and the media gets more eyes on stories of conflict and division than cooperation and harmony. The National Cabinet set up by ScoMo may not have everybody singing the same tune at the same time, but as a response to the pandemic it seems to have worked well in having some sort of national strategy in contrast to the shambles and division we saw in Trump's America. Our relatively low number of deaths points to a measure of success in working together. Or maybe it is just a matter of who has the higher border wall. That's a better topic here than any supposed piecemeal bias. --Pete (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
engadine mcdonalds.
There are many verifiable sources showing Scott Morrison acknowledging the rumours about Engadine McDonald's. This is to the point that he has denied defecating his pants that day in 1997 on at least two occasions makes it noteworthy enough to include somewhere on his Wikipedia page. It has also garnered plenty of attention and media articles on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterofmisinformation (talk • contribs) 07:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place for rumour. Please read WP:NOTJdaly81 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
as noted the purpose of its mention is not the rumours themselves, but rather the relevance they hold in the Australian political landscape including the fact that Morrison had acknowledged and mentioned it many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterofmisinformation (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
furthering that, after having reread the 'wikipedia is not' article, rumour in that context refers to speculation about things thaw are to happen in the future, not gossip or things that are speculated but not confirmed to have occurred in the past. Celebrity gossip also does not apply to preclude the inclusion of Engadine McDonald's, as it is rather noteworthy, and is more than mere trivial detail about a public figure. Engadine McDonalds is important in the cultural landscape of Australian politics, whether true or not. Especially as it is something that one would not expect a prime minister to spend any time responding to, making it noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fighterofmisinformation (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
This would be a borderline WP:BLP violation even if it were properly sourced, and since the sources are broken, it is a BLP violation. We don't include crude rumours, regardless of whether the person in question has denied them. See WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:BLPREMOVE. user:Fighterofmisinformation has made this edit four times, and has been undone by three different editors (me, User:Jdaly81 and user:GeebaKhap) It stays out unless there is consensus to include it. The supposed sources are broken, and the edit summary " hav taken to the talk page and shall restore this edit, subject to changes suggested in the talk section" is false, as there were precisely zero changes made to the content in that restore [9]. Edit warring a WP:BLP violation with broken refs, not following WP:BRD, fake edit summary... my WP:AGF is done. Meters (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Lead image
Option (2021)Option (2019)
Seeing how the lead image, while it is an official portrait, its a portrait from a pre-PM office meaning its outdated. Seeing how there's no PM portrait why not use an image during his tenure as PM? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
How about we use the best portrait we can? --Pete (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I would support switching to this image; we do have an official portrait available, but it was taken in 2014 and it would be preferable to use a newer photo - specifically of him as PM, and the image you suggested seems pretty suitable. If we did have access to an official photo of him as PM though, that would be a different matter entirely. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Skyring: and @Thescrubbythug: I would support a portrait of him during his PM tenure however none is avaliable at the moment. I think the image is proposed is the closest thing we have to such. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Oppose - Just because we have an image we can use doesn't mean we should use it. I see the official portrait being of higher quality, portrait-wise. A lot of these US government photographs come out pretty ordinary. Often the lighting is poor, there's an American flag behind them, they are photographed in a candid fashion etc. --Pete (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
File:Scott Morrison 2019.jpg (added on side) is about the only other half-decent one from his term in office. I'd probably be inclined to go with one of those, as a soon-to-be eight-year-old image is less than ideal; his appearance has changed since then although not dramatically. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Would be happy to go with either image, though I definitely lean towards the 2021 image - which is already in use on the 2022 Australian federal election page. Thankfully the lighting is not an issue and there's no American flag behind Morrison to be concerned about. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021
This edit request to Scott Morrison has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add a section in Scott Morrison's personal life about how he faced fire from the press after pooping his pants in a Mcdonald's restaurant in Engadine. 72.2.103.165 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now: Need reliable sources and your requested changes provided in the form of change X to Y for this edit requested to be fulfilled. —Sirdog(talk) 17:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022
Add a second nickname in the breakout box under Scomo: Scotty from Marketing. This is in widespread usage and there are heaps of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindlecandle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Good-oh. If there are heaps, then you should have no trouble coming up with three news stories from different reliable sources. Something that isn't the Betoota Advocate. Not opinion pieces, mind, we've got WP:BLP to think about. "Scomo" is in widespread use because it is short and fits well in newspaper headlines etc. --Pete (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
We are required to use reliable sources for BLP material. If it's in such widespread use as you say, then you should have no trouble coming up with good sources. "ScoMo" is in wide usage and it is trivial to find RS news stories, even if it is just in the headline, as noted earlier. I'm not convinced that SfM is anything near as common. For example, during the Gillard thing, "Juliar" was a common nickname amongst her detractors but we don't use it even though it was the subject of widespread community debate at the time.[10] --Pete (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Criticism in lede
Any PM attracts criticism; it is the nature of the job. The other political tribe accentuates the negative and eliminates the positive. This goes for both sides, of course.
We don't have to play that game and can take a more balanced view.
The lede is a summary. Of a man's life and career. Just because someone attracts criticism doesn't mean we have to report each episode in slavish detail in the lede. It may be reliably sourced but it has to be superimportant to warrant a mention in the limited real estate of the few paragraphs available to us.
The holiday in Hawai'i during the bushfires was a non-event. There's no Commonwealth fire brigade for the PM to lead. Still, it was a huge story, no denying that. The sex abuse in Parliament House doesn't appear to have anything to do with the PM personally but it is a significant and ongoing story, one where leadership matters. There are always sex scandals in Parliament - just ask Junie Morosi and Cheryl Kernot - but this has blown up on ScoMo's watch and he hasn't settled it.
There are no legs to the vaccine rollout story. Australia suffered the loss of the homegrown Queensland University vaccine because it generated false HIV positives and that came late in 2020. Placing orders for vaccines months in the future before any of them were approved was always a gamble and demand was high when they were available. We had few cases compared to other nations where Covid was raging and consequently less actual need so long as we maintained strict entry control. We are now well ahead of the global vaccination curve.
Is this particular story reallyas big as the bushfire holiday or the ongoing Parliament sexism row? Certainly not in terms of media coverage and I'm pretty sure that we are required to go by external sources and not gut feelings of individual editors.
As for the body of the article, where we may spread ourselves and go into detail, I can't see a problem; it's a valid topic in the "Response to Covid" theme where the PM has an undeniable national leadership role. --Pete (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Done Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Not done. Not sure what you want done. El_C 06:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:23, 13 September 2019 (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. Melmann 18:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KRtau16 (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
