Jump to content

Talk:Brendan Nelson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,851,292 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Australia}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Conservatism}}.
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
6,851,292 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: liberalism.
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|living=yes|listas=Nelson, Brendan|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Nelson, Brendan| blp=yes|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=mid<!-- Wikiproject specific tags --> |politics=yes|politics-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=mid<!-- Wikiproject specific tags --> |politics=yes|politics-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low|liberalism=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
| blp=yes
}}
}}


Latest revision as of 15:07, 9 March 2024

"Arrogant and Pompous"

[edit]

The problem with "arrogant and pompous" is that firstly, while probably true, IMO it's not a widely and generally-held view on Nelson (thus requiring it to be attributed), and secondly, the article implies that this perception is what is or what would be preventing him acceding to the Liberal leadership, and I don't think there's any evidence of that. There's any number of reasons why Nelson is not leader.

I don't see why we need to attribute his failure to attain the leadership position to anything in particular. Perhaps the criticism could be placed somewhere else in the article, or in reference to some specific event.

In any case, I didn't appreciate the no-summary revert. Surely, the text isn't inviolable? Lacrimosus 04:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not a widely held view? I would dispute that. Do a Google search for "Brendan Nelson" arrogant, or "Brendan Nelson" pompous, and see what comes up. Would like twenty or forty sources for that? However, I think it's widely held enough that that isn't necessary.
While I'm inclined to agree about claiming that it's not the reason he's not leader (as much as IMHO it's right, political speculation isn't our place, and thus, I don't think we should be suggesting exactly why), what other reason is there? Ambivalenthysteria 13:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Interestingly, the first ten or so that I found were all copied versions of this article :). At any rate, I probably should have been more specific earlier - is it a widely-held view within the liberal party? That, after all is where it's most important (I agree entirely with it personally myself as well).
As for other reasons for not being leader, well there are a couple. The biggest factor is usually luck and opportunity. Any potential Nelson bid would have to get past three main contenders, who are the main contenders by virtue chiefly of their seniority. The second big factor is Nelson's position at the "wet" side of the Liberal spectrum, currently not a good place to be, numbers-wise. Thirdly, he's not been able to make friends effectively in the Liberal caucus - which *may* be because he's arrogant, and it may be because he's just not a good lobbyist. Are we in a good position to judge? I still think "lacks the requisite qualities" better reflects our knowledge of what is a counter-factual situation anyway. Passing judgement on his lack of success doesn't really increase the informational quality of the article.Lacrimosus 13:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Arrogant and pompous" removed for want of a source

[edit]

I removed "arrogant and pompous" because the statement had no source. If someone can find a political observer saying on the record, "Nelson is too arrogant and pompous to become the Prime Minister", then by all means, add it to the article. Otherwise, it's just weasel words.

Also, being pompous and arrogant has never stopped anyone from becoming an Australian Prime Minister. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, forcing -> allowing was oh-too-predictable for a libertarian ;) Kewpid 16:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a slur on poor Joe Lyons, the least arrogant and least pompous man ever to hold public office in Australia. Adam 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Nelson

[edit]

This sentence is unsourced and absurd, and should be deleted:

He has been criticized for his continued use of the title "Dr.", despite the fact that he is not a practicing physician (and has not been one for many years). However the custom in Australia is a lifelong attribution of this honorific title, in the same manner that those who hold a Ph.D. maintain the honorific throughout their lives.

He is a licensed medical practitioner and perfectly entitled to be styled "Dr," regardless of whether he is currently practising. The analogy with PhDs is false (and in any case in Australia PhDs are always styled "Dr"). I have never seen this criticism made by anyone. Adam 02:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sorry, but this is incorrect. Where is the evidence that GPs keep the title "Dr"? I understand that they would if they had a doctorate, such as an MD, but Nelson does not. 2. Where is the evidence that he is a currently licensed medical practitioner? My understanding is that doctors have to be maintaining a certain number of hours per year which Nelson is not. 3. If the above two don't float your boat, then consider this. Exactly how many of the following profiles refer to their subject as "Mister" or "Mr"? John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Alexander Downer, Malcolm Turnbull, Wayne Swan, Peter Costello. What does Wikipedia say about consistency? My suggestion, given that the first two points are contentious and that the third is a lay down misere is to remove all reference to "Dr" unless and until it becomes de rigeur to refer to Howard, Turnbull, Rudd et al as "mr".203.217.82.96 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points 2 and 3. But just for the record, the vast majority of general practitioners in Australia, known as "Dr. Smith", do not have university doctorates but merely MB, BS. And paradoxically, those who do have doctorates tend to become specialists, and most specialists are known as "Mr". See physician for further info. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, JackofOz, very helpful. This still doesn't address the inconsistency of putting "Dr" in everywhere - given that John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Alexander Downer, Malcolm Turnbull, Wayne Swan and Peter Costello's entries don't have "Mr" everywhere, surely the insistence that Nelson's entry includes "Dr" everywhere is neither necessary, nor consistent with other politicians' entries. Can someone just remove it on these grounds? It seems awfully pompous to insist on its inclusion.192.30.92.238 (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chip in about what doctors are called in Australia, I believe that physicians, while not being "doctors" in the sense of holding said degree, are generally referred to with the honorific title Dr in a medical context. But you wouldn't call them Dr anything at the local shops or anything. PhD holders, on the other hand, are quite entitled to be referred to as Dr whenever they want. Whatever entitled means. Except for honorary doctorates. That's a different kettle of fish... 59.167.59.226 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Dave[reply]
Just a side view on this from a wide reading of academic and other sources - we have many politicians who started off as medical practitioners who continue to use the honorific "Dr" well after their entrance to politics. Dr Kim Hames, the deputy premier of WA, and Dr Rex Turnbull, a controversial figure in Tasmanian politics and later a Senate independent, are two examples which spring to mind. Orderinchaos 22:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for ID

[edit]

Would the article benefit from a sentence about his support for Intelligent Design?PiCo 02:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source is cited, and it is written in a NPOV manner, I suppose so. Andjam 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/10/1123353386917.html ("The Age" newspaper) states "The controversial theory of "intelligent design" has won the qualified backing of Education Minister Brendan Nelson, who says it should be taught in schools alongside evolution if that is the wish of parents." Woah! Thank goodness he's not in government 1dragon (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Current Event" tag necessary?

[edit]

After Nelson was elected leader of the Liberal Party, a "Current Event" tag was placed at the top of the page. Is this really necessary? It's sort of a one-fact event, that he was elected leader. I don't think there will be more detail to emerge that's notable for the article. A tag that indicates that things may change rapidly is a bit unnecessary, unless someone thinks the Liberal party will rapidly change its leader again very soon  :) --Lester 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No way should it be there. The event is over; he's leader; everyone in Federal Liberal has stated their 100% support. End of story.--DreamsReign (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brother's death - 1995 or 1990?

[edit]

The SMH article says Philip Nelson died in 1995, but this news.com article says 1990. Anybody have a more-reliable source to confirm which one is correct? --210.10.130.117 09:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that the news.com.au article is at least partly wrong. It says, "Dr Nelson's younger brother, Philip, died of AIDs aged 34 in 1990"; but if he was 34 and he died in 1990, then he could not have been younger than Brendan. (Also it's "AIDS" not "AIDs" of course). Peter Ballard 11:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Nelson saying that he never voted liberal in his life

[edit]

Is there any reason why people are against its inclusion? --58.172.249.40 14:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really irrelevant and it adds nothing to the article. Lots of politicians change parties although, in this case, Nelson wasn't even a politician when he decided to swap from Labor to Liberal. I don't see the relevance of his age either. --AussieLegend 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's interesting and worth inclusion. But for such a comment, a date is important. So it needs a proper, dated, reference, not an undated youtube video with the comment "when he was clearly middle aged", whatever that means. i.e. it needs to say something like, "Nelson said in an interview in 1992 that he had never voted Liberal...". Peter Ballard 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is relevant given the fact that he said he never voted liberal and than became the leader of the federal liberal party. Many politicians change parties, but that is part of their biography. Imagine if Billy Hughes's article did not mention the fact that he was a member of several parties. Maybe its inclusion in its present form needs help, but I dont know when it was exactly from, except that its presentation was on channel 2. I dont think that lack of knowledge of its origin should validate its exclusion. --58.172.249.40 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Nelson had changed parties is already in the article. The newsbite adds nothing to the article. --AussieLegend 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's cropped up in quite a few interviews that he's done. I think it's worth a very quick mention. Slac speak up! 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This interview is relevant. He was demonstrating against Paul Keating at a public rally at a bookship in Toorak. It happened four days before the 1993 federal election. He was Federal Vice-President of the AMA at the time. It's on record that he voted Liberal in 1987. He joined the Labor Party in 1988 and stayed a member through to possibly as late as 1994, but he nevertheless voted Liberal in 1990 and 1993 (again according to his own testimony). He had also been considering seeking Labor pre-selection for a winnable seat during this period. For whatever reasons, that didn't happen, and he subsequently joined the Liberal Party. Seems he was terribly confused about which party he wanted to support and/or be a member of. If he could have got Labor preselection, he might well have been the PM now instead of Rudd, arguing the Labor case just as strongly as he's now arguing the Liberal case. That the question keeps on getting resurrected 14 years after the event suggests that observers think it says a lot about him. -- JackofOz 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is more relevant, and a much more appropriate reference, than what is essentially a looped, two second newsbite but I still think it's a trivial matter that isn't worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. It's just something that the press has latched on to because it's good for effect, not because it's news. It really reminds me of Elton John's Candle in the Wind: "Even when you died, Oh the press still hounded you, All the papers had to say, Was that Marilyn was found in the nude".
I don't think he was confused at all about which party he wanted to join. He obviously wanted to get into parliament and was willing to do what it took to get there. Many politicians are like that. I also don't think that the issue "keeps on getting resurrected". It's really only appeared now because he's opposition leader and somebody has been digging for negative things to say about him, as they did with Howard (A GST willl never form part of our policies), Keating (L.A.W.law tax cuts) and Hawke (By 1990 no Australian child will live in poverty!). --AussieLegend 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact was introduced in a very unencyclopedic way:

He once said that he had "never voted liberal in (his) life" when he was clearly no spring chicken[1].

Taken from this diff. Auroranorth (!) 07:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the incident here: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22890189-2,00.html

I think that is an adequate reference.

Sonnybillyboys (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think given the fact that he was a Labor member for 20 years (as stated many, many times in both media and academic literature) - having joined at age 13 and resigned only when taking up office in the federal AMA - and given the emphasis given throughout his political career to his prior affiliation, the quote, and his repudiation of it, are relevant. Orderinchaos 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunism

[edit]

I think a little more could be made of Nelson's political opportunism p- the switch from Labor to Liberal motivated by nothing b=deeper than the desire to further his political career, the support of Intelligent design reversed when it became clear that it was a vote-loser... I wonder if the man has ever had a motive in his life other than the promotion of his personal ambitions? 203.189.134.3 (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such speculation isn't encyclopaedic, we have to go from what has been reported in reliable sources, and must be careful not to synthesise facts. Orderinchaos 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Validity/security of Nelson's election as Lib leader

[edit]

Is is worthwhile adding a sentence or two based on this report of the doubbts surrounding Nelson's election as Lib leader? PiCo (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

I think there needs to be more information added to his personal life. One particular area of interest may be his religion, I'm guessing he is a Christian but I dont have detailed knowledge. Kevin Rudd, his opponent, has an entire section titled "Religious Views" in his article- surely this deserves inclusion. Niveam (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

[edit]

I'm trying to news.google search the article I was reading but can't find it, does anyone have the article(s) indicating Nelson is more anti-apology than he previously was due to pressure from the conservatives in the party room who backed him for the leadership over Turnbull? Timeshift (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was about 10 years ago that Nelson supported the apology. Then again, he was also a member of the labor party tooLester 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I don't like the guy myself I thought it was pretty obvious that it was media speculation, trying to pressure him into it.124.177.66.44 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What made it "pretty obvious"? Timeshift (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he caved in. Timeshift (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson has done 2 backflips on the sorry saga. Ten years ago he supported it. In January 2008 he emphatically said he did not support an apology. Now he supports it again. Crazy. Also, his opposition to "sorry" was the reason he won the Lib leadership against Turnbull (who must be fuming).Lester 11:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the following elements regarding Nelson and "Sorry":

  • 1997 support for the Human Rights Commission Bringing Them Home Report
  • 2007 Liberal leadership obtained by opposing the concept of an apology
  • 2008 January - reitereated his reasons for strongly oppoing the apology
  • 2008 February - opposed the use of the term Stolen Generation, eventually supported apology, but caused controversy with his Sorry Day speech

So, the "sorry" issue has been the biggest issue of Nelson's leadership so far.Lester 04:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it has. Timeshift (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, he was one of Hanson's earliest opponents within the federal Liberals, and supported reconciliation quite publicly in 1996 even when Herron and Howard were saying the opposite. I'll dig up the proper sources later, but I have reviewed them and it's clear that he was not afraid of his views being known on the topic in the late 90s. Orderinchaos 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Reverted positions to best placement, there is nothing at WP:MOS indicating the other layout is better. It looks worse. Also 'controversial' is not commentary. Timeshift (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to remove the pixel count only and will do so again per WP:MOS#IMAGES. If your concern is layout, then you can adjust this by moving the pictures, not resizing. Oh, and "controversial" is commentary - let's report the facts only, and let readers make up their own minds. --Merbabu (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The default pixel count is not explicit, as these photos are not of small resolution and not closeup, a larger px is warranted. How is controversial commentary? You're saying people turning their backs did not create controversy, enough for many news articles of exactly what the picture shows, with one cited? No expansion is made on 'controversy', thus it is not commentary. Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment on whether it was or wasn't controversial, rather I maintain that it is not how one writes a wikipedia article. Further, there is no pressing reason to go against the MOS - nothing in these pics is requires it to be different - and the pic layout was lousy before anyway.--Merbabu (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I suggest you gain consensus before making your changes. Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, where have I heard that before? ;-) .--Merbabu (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between these pics and any other pic at Wikipedia. I'm not sure why these need to be the sole exception to the rule. See John McCain for example. --Merbabu (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't the sole exception, and WP:MOS isn't a rule just a preference and not applicable to all images, it explicitly states custom sizes for some images are fine. Timeshift (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong view on the size of these pictures, but I reallty think they would be better located further down the article. The lengthy infobox runs alongside them where they are now, resulting in either a mid-page block of images and infobox, or a narrow and unreadable column of text sandwiched between the two. The pictures relate to Nelson as Defence Minister - how about we move them down to that section? Euryalus (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if that section wasn't so tiny. Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit short. If I get time and can't think of anything more interesting to work on I'll expand it and then an image move might fit better. Euryalus (talk) 03:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to gallery format. Timeshift (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But, these are smaller still than the non-pixel forced image size I proposed and you stringently opposed (above). *scratches head*. --Merbabu (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Nelson at apology

[edit]

Can anyone name the woman on the right here? Timeshift (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Lowitja O'Donoghue 122.109.6.250 (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights

[edit]

The new wording is still somewhat odd. It states he is attempting to distance himself from the previous Howard govt policies, and says he doesn't support gay marriage, adoption or IVF, but "believes in addressing the social and economic injustices affecting homosexuals". Didn't John Howard take more or less the same stance, ie: superannuation? Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dave Tollner

[edit]

I would personally question the legitimacy of Dave Tollner's vote not because he had lost his seat but because he is from the CLP, the NT non-Labor Party. The CLP is technically a different party from the Liberals and the arrangement of the CLP sitting with the Liberals in the House of Representatives and the Nationals in the Senate is just plain ridiculous. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are various news articles saying how Tollner did vote Nelson. See the first few here as an example. Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making is not that on who Tollner had voted for but that he shouldn't not have been allowed to vote in the first place because technically he is not a member of the Liberal Party. --The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a technical difference between the Liberal Parliamentary Party, the Liberal Party organisation at Commonwealth level and the Liberal Party at state/territory level? If so then presumably the party arrangements in the Territory are irrelevant vis a vis how an CLPer sits in Canberra (except in so far as what's acceptable to the CLP). And isn't the CLP recognised as being both the Liberal and National party for the Northern Territory, similar to the new Queensland arrangement? Timrollpickering (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no expertise in this area, but my understanding is that once elected, Politicians are not actually bound by their party. So a parliamentary grouping does not need to match the registered political parties. --Surturz (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

going nowhere

[edit]

Added reference. It is significant for the leader of the party, on the lowest polling in polling history, to assure us that he is "going nowhere". Not a good choice of words. Timeshift (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the 'going nowhere' quote with one more appropriate to his meaning. The blog you have quoted has mischieviously quoted him out of context. If Laurie Oakes made a point of the 'going nowhere' quote then it might be worthy of inclusion, but some Nelson-hating blog is hardly a reputable source.--Surturz (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the article has been sterilized to remove any conflicting views from the official party line. Removed was:

Nelson's leadership has come under increased pressure in January 2008, after an MP shifted loyalties to Turnbull, and taking into consideration that former MP Dave Tollner was still allowed to vote, the leadership vote would now be deadlocked at 43-43.[1] Newspoll polling in February 2008 set a record low "Preferred Prime Minister" rating for any opposition leader at 9 percent, with March polling setting another record of 7 percent, with two party preferred setting another Newspoll record at 37-63 percent.[2] Nelson responded by declaring himself the underdog.[3] In response to increased speculation about his leadership Nelson commented in April that he was "going nowhere".[4]
Nelson used his 2008 budget reply to declare the Rudd government budget inflationary, despite arguing for a 5 cent reduction in petrol excise and removing the "alcopop" tax with no savings to offset the loss in revenue, which some commentators argue is an alternative budget that would make inflation a far worse problem. Labor claims Nelson's changes would create a $9 billion hole over four years.[5] Nelson's budget reply was anonymously attacked by some coalition MPs, with one saying "If the only ace left in the Coalition's deck is economic responsibility and credibility, what Brendan has proposed surely blows that out of the water."[6]

It seems many have made fun of those ill-chosen words, "i'm going nowhere". Not to mention the removal of his flawed budget. Why remove the damaging economic credentials line? Here's another quote:

The leaked email, from Treasury spokesman Mr Turnbull to Dr Nelson, cautioned strongly against Dr Nelson's plan to cut fuel excise by 5 cents a litre.
The email said it would damage the Coalition's reputation as a good economic manager.[2]

So why remove cited contents to sterilise the article? Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that removed the "anonymous liberal MPs" quote, BEFORE recent coverage of Turnbull's email. Anonymous quotes reported by journalists are not verifiable. There is plenty of coverage of Turnbull's criticism of the 5c excise reduction in today's newspapers if you want to include those instead. Rather than pushing trivia, please try and use references of substance in your future edits in this article. --Surturz (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Nelson quote should remain in the article. It is getting significant coverage for the specific reason that it was a bad choice of words with a double meaning. It's a similar situation to Kim Beazley's Rove gaffe. If there are concerns that it is out of context, I would suggest one of two alternatives: Either use an extended quote (including the preceeding sentence) or write a line leading into the abreviated quote to explain to the reader that the press was using it to mock Nelson. Lester 23:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That there are a lot of people ready to quote Nelson out of context to make fun of him should be of no surprise to anyone. However, there are no mainstream newspapers or indeed, any other reputable sources that have commented on the 'going nowhere' quote as a gaffe. You are free to push your POV on this talk page, but unless you can find a reputable political commentator that considers the 'going nowhere' quote as a gaffe, it should not be in the main article. Kim Beazley's gaffe was widely covered by mainstream political commentators. 'Going nowhere' was not commented on, not even in the newspaper article in which it appeared. --Surturz (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We had reliable sources prior to. Anonymous Liberal MPs are fine if its a WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have one person saying that another person said something, it is hearsay. When you have one person saying that another, unnamed person, said something, it is a rumour. Rumours, even from reputable journalists, are not verifiable. "anonymous liberal MPs" violates WP:V and, in this instance, WP:BLP also. WP:BLP requires a higher standard than other articles. --Surturz (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "going nowhere" quote does not belong in the article until reliable secondary sources begin commenting on it. Who does Lester mean by "significant coverage"? A bunch of bloggers it seems. The Turnbull email is an entirely different matter because that is getting significant coverage in RS. p.s. Kim Beazley's Rove gaffe isn't in there (though it certainly should be). Peter Ballard (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "significant coverage", I mean that when the incident occurred it was widely reported by every major news outlet. The Age and ABC PM as an example. Since then it has kept popping up. The Advertiser used it as a headline (even though the content was on other matters to do with Nelson), and Laurie Oaks opened his interview segment with that line. More commentary about the line from Fairfax. That's just a quick grab, but there are many more articles out there. Politicians often get remembered for things they say, often taken out of context (eg Keating "the recession we had to have"), and often politicians are remembered (rightly or wrongly) for gaffes, such as Beazley's "Rove". I'm sure Brendan Nelson would reword his phrase if he could have his chance again, but the sad fact is that those words came out of his mouth, he can't take it back, and he'll be remembered for it. Lester 04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But only two of those reports (Oakes and the ABC) drew attention to the double meaning of Nelson's comment, and neither laboured the point. Has anyone (apart from some random bloggers) made a point of Nelson's "going nowhere" comment since April? Peter Ballard (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last link I provided (above) titled 'Fairfax' also comments about it. It was just a quick bunch of references I Googled. I don't know how many I need to satisfy everyone. I think the Oakes one was major enough. When opposition leaders fail, they always have a quote that gets associated with that failure. Like Beazely's Rove comment. Alexander Downer got associated with "the things that batter". When Nelson proclaimed that he is a leader "going nowhere", it inevitably was ridiculed.Lester 10:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. Oakes made a one line comment on it at the time, and apparently neither he nor anyone else of note hasn't mentioned it since the week of the comment. To prove notability, show that the ridicule has been ongoing (i.e. later than April 2008), not just a Laurie Oakes one liner at the time. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Brendan Nelson" "going nowhere" - google result. Timeshift (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nelson's leadership shaky as MPs shift loyalties, Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, 12 February 2008
  2. ^ 03/3/2008
  3. ^ Nelson defends record low poll figures | The Australian
  4. ^ Nelson vows to stay on as Liberal leader - Breaking News - National - Breaking News
  5. ^ '$9b hole' in Opposition Budget - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
  6. ^ Opposition fuel tax cut idea under attack | The Courier-Mail

43-43 deadlock

[edit]

"Nelson's leadership came under increased pressure in January 2008, after an MP shifted loyalties to Turnbull, and taking into consideration that former MP Dave Tollner was still allowed to vote, the leadership vote would now be deadlocked at 43-43." This part of the article would need to be modified given Alexander Downer's retirement. Downer had voted for Turnbull and there is no way to know at this stage on whom Downer's replacement would vote for in a Nelson-Turnbull rematch.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson and his four Fender Stratocasters

[edit]

Should he be listed at List of Stratocaster players? Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have thought so. Brendan Nelson's collection of Strats and Harleys gives us an insight into the personality of Brendan Nelson. But the Stratocaster list is full of famous musicians of worldwide note. Nelson isn't up there at the moment, and will be even less so after he gets deposed from the Liberal leadership in the coming weeks. --Lester 03:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I don't think Timeshift was being serious. If he was then obviously no, as the list makes clear it only includes those whose Stratocaster use contributed to the popularity of the instrument or was otherwise unique or of historical importance. I doubt that youngsters Australia-wide have turned to the Stratocaster because the Opposition leader has four, and Nelson hasn't argued that his policies or political views were shaped by playing his guitar (though that would explain a fair bit). I recall Joan Kirner belting out "I Love Rock and Roll" on TV a few years back, perhaps we have the making of a smash hit political music duo ... Euryalus (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

going nowhere take 2

[edit]

Peter's made his decision that he did not seek the leadership of the party. And as I've said before I'd be very happy if he changes his mind - Brendan Nelson, 29/8/2008.

A spokesman later clarified that Dr Nelson meant he would be happy for Mr Costello to change his mind about quitting politics.[3]

Noteworthy? Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review of article

[edit]

Given the number of hits it's likely to attract, I decided to murder my student access to various databases and try and make a decent article of it. Haven't yet got to his ministerial roles (I'm up to 1997) but I think insufficient attention had been given to his AMA career given its prominence at the time (even I remember it and I was a teenager in high school at the time). If anyone has any suggestions for improvement to the sections I've reworked this morning, feel free to suggest them - I had to rely heavily on SMH and The Age and they might have missed some key bits. I'll look into 1997-2001 shortly, but have some errands to run today. Orderinchaos 22:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has he resigned yet?

[edit]

Was Chris Uhlmann simply wrong when he wrote here today: "And it might surprise some to learn that former Liberal leader Brendan Nelson has yet to resign from Parliament, but he will before it resumes on Monday week."? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he's correct. I heard it on an interview this morning. (Quite common with these sorts of situations, took Geoff Gallop ages to resign after he announced his resignation, even though his replacement was already Premier - all it influences is the date of the by-election, really.) Orderinchaos 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that. We're currently describing him as a "former politician" who left Parliament on 16 September 2009. Those do not appear to be the case. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't spot that one - good point. Orderinchaos 08:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, just talked to a couple of people - he is still in every sense the Member for Bradfield for now. Orderinchaos 08:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see our source for his 16 September resignation is now a dead link. But surely this is very unusual: the Ambassador, who is operating in the interests of the Australian (Labor) government, is still an MP, who is operating in the interests of the Liberal Party. Is there not a fairly serious conflict of interests here, at least in principle? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's the ambassador yet. He's expressed his desire to campaign for the new Liberal candidate in the by-election. However, I'm surprised he's still an MP. When this was first announced in late August, it was reported that Nelson would be resigning by the end of next month, i.e. September. He made his valedictory speech during the last sitting of parliament. What's he waiting for? Digestible (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently saying he was appointed Ambassador on 16 September. If that's not true, he's still the Ambassador-designate. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, we've got it exactly the wrong way round: rather than being an Ambassador who's an ex-MP, he's an Ambassador-designate who's a serving MP. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Brendan Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Brendan Nelson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although he was never Health Minister....

[edit]

Although Nelson was never Health Minister, Nelson's medical expertise did come in useful during his time in cabinet when the government was considering whether to approve a drug.

I think this should be included in the article but I don't remember what the drug was about and the details of it but Nelson as a doctor expressed his medical opinion that the drug was not safe to use. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brendan_Nelson&oldid=1212778746"