Talk:Spouse or partner of the prime minister of Australia

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

The Prime Minister's spouse has no official duties[edit]

Then why does this page exist? We should keep the Category but delete this page. (There's only 7 of these women in the category anyway. That hardly warrants a list.) If people want to know their names they won't navigate here, they'll go to the relevant PM's page and look in the info box. Nick 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First time i've seen this page[edit]

The spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia is a position that has been occupied only by women to date LOL funny stuff Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there's a more up-to-date and free PM+spouse image on John Howard if anyone wants to change it. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP throws up some bizzare articles at times... :-/ Shot info (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things[edit]

I wonder about the format of the table. Its purpose is not to show who the PMs were at any given time (and their spouses at those times as a secondary matter), but who the spouses were (and when their husbands were PM as the secondary issue). Currently, it could be read that Deakin and his wife divorced and remarried. Same story for Fisher and Menzies. That's because we have "2nd time" or "3rd time" ater the spouse's name, which suggests rather the wrong idea. Would it not be better to concertina the terms of the PMs who served broken terms, and show the spouse's name only once.

I'm surprised at the reversion of my footnote about Bob and Hazel divorcing and Bob marrying Blanche. As we explain at Blanche's article, she and Bob had an affair when he was ACTU President, and he even told her back then that he was leaving Hazel for her, but changed his mind. They resumed their affair in 1988 when he was PM, while he played happy families with Hazel as far as the world was concerned. It was a very significant and complex relationship for a long time before they finally married in 1995. Maybe my wording was not perfect, but I do believe it bears some mention. To my knowledge, Hawke is the only PM who divorced and remarried after leaving the PM-ship, which puts him in a special category regardless of who his 2nd wife was. (It's unclear if Keating is divorced or simply separated; he hasn't remarried in any event.) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the scope of the article should be spouses at the time of the incumbency hence my reversion of Blanche - she wasn't his wife. I agree the table needs cleaning up. I am not sure about the colours - is it helpful to state political allegiance of spouses - I appreciate that is why they had the role though.
So the table could look like (sampling from broken periods)
Name Prime Minister From To
Pattie Deakin Alfred Deakin 24 September 1903 27 April 1904
Ada Watson Chris Watson 27 April 1904 18 August 1904
Flora Reid George Reid 18 August 1904 5 July 1905
Pattie Deakin Alfred Deakin 5 July 1905 13 November 1908
Margret Fisher Andrew Fisher 13 November 1908 2 June 1909
the lack of linking indicates she has been there before
or
Name Prime Minister Period of role
Pattie Deakin Alfred Deakin 24 September 1903 - 27 April 1904
5 July 1905 - 13 November 1908
Ada Watson Chris Watson 27 April 1904 - 18 August 1904
Flora Reid George Reid 18 August 1904 - 5 July 1905
Margret Fisher Andrew Fisher 13 November 1908 - 2 June 1909
What do you think? I think I like the second option better. --Matilda talk 00:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too (about the table).
About the other matter, I see where you're coming from. One option would be to define the scope of the article more explicitly in the text by saying it's restricted to spouses at the time of incumbency and does not profess to get into any pre- or post-PM (or infra-PM, for that matter) arrangements. That would, of course, mean removing my footnote about Zara Holt later becoming (Dame) Zara Bate. But that's tricky because she became best known as Zara Bate, and her article has that title. Removing any reference to these sorts of details gives the article less of the "human interest" factor that it would otherwise have. And that's relevant because the human interest factor would be the primary reason for many people to read this article in the first place. When Dame Zara Bate, as she then was, was interviewed or stories about her appeared in magazines, she was always referred to not just as the wife of Jeff Bate, but also as the widow of the drowned Prime Minister Harold Holt. So the connection is there in the minds of the public. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Spouse[edit]

I don't think it's splitting hairs to say that Tim Mathieson is not a spouse per se, because he's not actually married to Gillard. (I just checked the full Oxford Dictionary - they count fiancés but not domestic partners.) I'm not suggesting we take him off the list; I'm not even suggesting we change the title because you could make the argument that he's her de facto husband. All I want to do is put an asterisk. Any objections? Nick (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an explanatory note in the references section: "Tim Mathieson is the domestic partner of incumbent Prime Minister Gillard. They are not in a marital relationship" What else is needed? --

'Domestic partner'?[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, and despite the Australian media assuming they have a de facto partnership, Tim Mathieson does not live with Julia Gillard. Which means he's not a spouse, nor a de facto partner, nor a domestic partner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.218.18 (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that he tends to be at her house for the 5.30am (sometimes 4.30am) blow wave. Maybe he just gets up really early at his bachelor's abode and drives to her place. Seriously, I think some people are really struggling trying to apply outdated societal values to this relationship. just accept it and move on. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I may have been mistaken. According to this article http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/article521036.ece/First-Bloke-is-right-companion-for-Australias-No-1-redhead (more recent than what I'd read previously), they share a house in Melbourne. Assuming it's accurate, they must have moved in together fairly recently. Not that it matters; I don't know why I'm even discussing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.218.18 (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is a synthesis of facts, which synthesis is only marginally supported by reliable sources, so whether someone by original research has decided Mr Matheson qualifies as a "spouse" or not doesn't really add or subtract from the quality of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 21:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new section[edit]

May I propose to add a new section "Spouses by Age" KILLERXR (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? How does that assist the project? WWGB (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that we can know that the living spouses had already surpassed the ages of those who died before them KILLERXR (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Others section[edit]

I have tried to add to the Others section the fact that Keating has been, since 1998, in a long-term domestic partnership with Julieanne Newbould, but have been inexplicably reverted twice by @WWGB:. It was cited, in an argument about relevance, that Gorton’s second marriage was not included - which makes zero sense as the same section explicitly makes reference to Gorton’s marriage to Nancy Home from 1993. Furthermore, we’ve included other long-term domestic partnerships such as Tim Mathieson (though in his case Gillard was in office at the same time). I see absolutely no issue or harm with including a reference to a domestic partnership that has lasted for nearly a quarter century in the appropriate section, and it comes off as obtuse and inflexible to dismissively revert it and remove any reference to it. TheScrubby (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn, despite the incivility. WWGB (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Haydon is not Albo's domestic partner or spouse and should be removed[edit]

Unlike all of the other spouses and domestic partners of PMs Haydon does not live with Albo, has no children with Albo and is not engaged to Albo. She is therefore not Albo's spouse or domestic partner according to EVERY definition of "domestic partner". Albo and Haydon are just girlfriend/boyfriend by choice as is reported in all of the reliable sources, none of which report Albo/Haydon as domestic partners or spouses. In contrast Tim Mathieson and Gillard lived together which is the critical difference here but Haydon should obviously be removed from this article unless the circumstances change and they actually become domestic partners. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, somewhat reluctantly, at least while this article is framed as "spouse" of the Prime Minister of Australia. I looked at dictionary definitions which seemed to specify it as a marital term, but felt that it wasn't how it was used in Australia, so went to the legal definitions. The ATO defines a "spouse" as a member of a couple that are married or in a registered relationship or live together "on a genuine domestic basis". Haydon would not fit that definition. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is nothing above a gf/bf situation if they do not cohabit, have children are married or have been scheduled be married Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She did travel with him to Europe recently. Either that was at his and/or her own personal expense, or she was covered at official expense as the domestic partner of the PM (or whatever official terminology they use to cover such arrangements). I wonder which it was. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude from list. Not described as a spouse by any reliable source as far as I can see. But it's good to explain the situation in this article. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources that refer to Haydon as Albanese's "partner". Perhaps we should take a more enlightened approach and rename the article, similar to some European wikis: List of spouses or partners of the president of France, List of spouses or partners of the Taoiseach, List of spouses and partners of Icelandic presidents etc. WWGB (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Notice particularly the French move rationale. On the other hand, it makes me wonder if any past PMs have had girlfriends or mistresses and whether they should be included. Blanche d'Alpuget, anyone? StAnselm (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a BIG difference between Haydon & Albo and ALL other domestic partners of the PM. They don't live together. Full stop. I think in this circumstance Haydon/Albo are just 'girlfriend/boyfriend' with no kids and are not living together. Nothing more. Using "partner" still implies they are committed in some way or are 'domestic partners' when they are not and it seems they won't be for the remainder of Albo's tenure as PM. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see it more akin to Hawke and d'Alpuget while Hawke was PM. StAnselm (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is no official "spouse of the PM" role, so I don't think there is a rigid definition that we need to follow. I agree she is not a spouse by most definitions, but she did accompany Albo on an official international trip and was photographed with the other "spouses" at meetings. She is clearly attending events with him as his chosen partner/companion/girlfriend/bestie and not as an official or staff member. There have been plenty of precedents for not-exactly-spouse to fill similar roles, e.g. Mary Putland was the Lady of Government House in NSW during the reign of her father Governor William Bligh (his wife was not willing to undertake the voyage to Australia). Why not put her in and just explain the nature of the relationship (assuming we have reliable sources for it)? Then the reader can decide for themselves what they think about the situation; I really don't think we need to decide for them. Kerry (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note the article's lede says "assists the prime minister with ceremonial duties as well as performing various other functions." On that definition, she would seem to qualify. Kerry (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that note we would need to create a whole new article, as Haydon simply does not fit into this one about 'spouses/domestic partners' even when a few editors are trying to squeeze the square peg into a round hole. The reality is Albo has decided he does not want to live with his girlfriend and as all boyfriends/girlfriends do they've been on some holidays together. It is the living together bit which is the crucial missing piece which is in every single Australian definition of 'domestic partner' or 'spouse'. I think StAnselm also made a great comparison with Hawke and d'Alpuget while Hawke was PM. Of course if Albo feels he is ready to make that commitment in the future and actually live with his girlfriend then sure, Haydon would fit into this current article. But right now she does not because Albo has decided he does not want to live with Haydon. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Albo has decided"? Could you be any more sexist? WWGB (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding WWGB? What an incredibly immature and childish comment. I take that as a personal attack and ask you to retract it please. There is no need to be so uncivil because you were one of the editors trying to squeeze this square peg into a round hole. The reliable sources have stated Albo made the decision not to have Haydon move into the Lodge with him as his Spouse/Domestic partner. So no it was not me being sexist! Please keep your angry childish retaliatory comments to yourself next time. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see those "reliable sources [that] have stated Albo made the decision not to have Haydon move into the Lodge with him". Thanks, WWGB (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion, is it worth considering reframing the page? WWGB cites some good examples of existing articles with a wider scope that would eliminate the need for this conversation - but Kerry also has a really good point in noting that there has been historical examples where people who weren't in a romantic relationship essentially took on the public/state role this article refers to. It's unfortunate that we don't have a more formalised concept of it (as in say, the US) where all of these people would have been considered to be "first lady". The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we include d'Alpuget as Bob Hawke's spouse while Hawke was PM given he was doing all the fun stuff with d'Alpuget including holidays away while still married to Hazel? Do we include other mistresses and girlfriends on the side that various PMs had over the history of Australia? Where do we draw the line when trying so hard to squeeze that square peg into this round hole we have with this article and the fact that Albo and Haydon choose not to even live together? Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about someone just starts a page move (to List of spouses or partners of the prime minister of Australia or similar). But it would be good for that person to address the d'Alpuget question, and whether the change is intended to allow Haydon to be added. StAnselm (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue of d'Alpuget is a red herring, unless she appeared on Hawke's arm at official events while he was PM. This is not an article about Prime Ministers and their sex lives, their holidays, or their everyday living arrangements. It's about the official/ceremonial side of things, the person who partners them at official events. Once upon a time, that usually meant the lawfully-married wife. Since then, times have changed. We've had a female prime minister with man on her arm and our society has become increasingly accepting of de facto relationships, gay marriage, transgender rights, etc. There is an increasing trend for couples (particularly in second or subsequent relationships) to choose to live apart for a range of reasons (work in different cities, having children from previous relationships, just don't want to share a home, etc). This was recognised in some states during the COVID lockdowns with exemptions for visiting "significant others" (the so-called cross-household bubble). When Julia Gilliard was elected, there was lots of nonsense about the status of her partner ("how can a man be a First Lady?"). The fact that there has a lot less commentary about Albo and Jody suggests Australia has moved on to a less judgemental view of relationships. So instead of our judging the Albo/Jody relationship (which is WP:POV), let's just document the relationship that exists and move on.Kerry (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Red herring only if we focus on the article here which is Spouses/Domestic Partners of PMs. The article is not about girlfriends/boyfriends/partners of the PM. 'Partner' and 'Domestic Partner' in Australia are 2 very different things. The 'Spouse/domestic partner' requires as a fundamental and critical criteria that actually the 2 individuals LIVE TOGETHER. It has nothing to do with moral judgment or modern times or sexism or anything else. It is just that Haydon/Albo do not fit that definition of 'Spouse/Domestic Partner'. Full stop. If we do include 'partners/girlfriends' of PM's as is being proposed, then definitely we need to include d'Alpuget in the article and include a photograph of her as Bob Hawke's 'partner/girlfriend' as she was Bob Hawke's girlfriend/partner which is well sourced. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It gets worse. Ben Chifley had a long-term arrangement with his private secretary Phyllis Donnelly. His wife refused to live in Canberra, so Ben was officially alone most of the time. Phyllis was with him when he had his fatal heart attack in the Kurrajong Hotel. Phyllis was in exactly the same position as Blanche was during Hawke's premiership, and I'm sure we could dredge up some other examples. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be most unfair to conflate the role of Haydon, who openly supports and assists Albanese with some of his prime ministerial duties, with the existence of surreptitious mistresses kept by former prime ministers. WWGB (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very strange argument. As has been pointed out several times, this article (and the others provided as examples of precedent for the alternative title "Spouses or partners") is about the person who accompanies the Prime Minister in an official ceremonial capacity as their partner. Not mistresses. You're arguing in complete bad faith here, Cruiseoutbreak. If you don't believe that she is a 'partner'
It is also very clear that the Australian media considers her his partner, and she acts in a ceremonial official capacity

I would support a change to whoever the ceremonial assistant is, so to speak, whether it is a marriage partner, other less formalised partner, or a single/widowed prime minister/president who is using a sister or a young adult/teenage daughter or whatever Bumbubookworm (talk) 08:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albo and Haydon are not in a domestic partnership and are therefore not domestic partners nor are they "spouses" according to every single definition of both terms. This is because they do not live together. Change the title of the article and put it to the vote here. Otherwise Haydon simply does NOT fit into this article about spouses/domestic partners of the PM and leaving her in the article is extremely misleading to Australian readers in particular. Yes they are "partners" just not "domestic partners" in Australian lingo. I am not the only editor who has agreed with this point. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also as JackofOz and other editors noted, both Ben Chifley's partner/girlfriend Phyllis Donnelly and Bob Hawke's partner/girlfriend Blanche d'Alpuget obviously should also be included in any new 'all-encompassing' article of spouse/domestic partner/partner/girlfriend or whatever of Australian PMs. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Secret mistresses should not be included under any circumstances as they are never appearing as dignitaries. Good thing Silvio Berlusconi has never struck Aus! This is not a gossip magazine! Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can be grateful that Billy Snedden did not get to be prime minister. WWGB (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ms d’Alpuge was Bob Hawke's widow and second wife and definitely should be included. Its incredibly disrespectful to put her in the category of secret mistresses. Plenty of the Spouses/domestic partners included in this article did NOT "assist the Prime Minister with ceremonial duties as well as performing various other functions" yet they are in here. What are the rules here with this article titled Spouses of the PM and everyone trying to fit this square peg into a round hole? Does it include Personal Assistants? Seriously? Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restart[edit]

Can I remind everyone that this is not a forum for your personal viewpoint on the relationship between Albo and Jodie (sorry for the misspelling earlier) but a discussion about the best way to develop this article based on Wikipedia's policies. If you are new to Wikipedia, the relevant content policies are biographies of living people, neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Relevant conduct policies are consensus, edit warring, and personal attacks. Could everyone please bear this in mind? In regard to edit warring, this discussion began on 13 July. I suggest we roll back the article to the last version (3 July) before this discussion commenced (most but not all of the subsequent edits have been about the relationship between Albo and Jodie) until this discussion has reached consensus or at least a strong majority view. As always, feel free to draw this discussion to the attention of other contributors, but remember the obligation to not WP:CANVASS for support of a particular position in doing so. To that end, I want to make a proposal for a way forward derived from the conversation above. I would like you to say "support" or "oppose" without proposing variations at this point (that can come if there isn't strong support).

We have reliable sources describing Jodie as Albo's partner provided above (using whatever definition of "partner" was in the mind of the author of those sources). We have a proposal to rename this article "List of spouses and partners of the prime minister of Australia". I propose we rename the article in this way, add Jodie as Albo's partner (suitably sourced) and that this article confine itself to the publically-acknowledged spouse/partner of the PM during their tenure as PM and not include other relationships (which can of course be discussed in the article for that particular PM and/or their own article where applicable). Who feels this is a way forward? Who does not? Kerry (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A very sensible and appropriate way forward. WWGB (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rollback. As it stands, without a reliable source identifying Haydon as a "spouse", it's a BLP violation. The page move should be done via WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rollback. We also need some very good quality sources which say Jodie Haydon and Albo are actually 'Partners' akin to defacto or spouse or at least are living together! The sources that say Haydon is his 'partner' assumed she was moving into the Lodge with Albo which every single other spouse/domestic partner did including Tim Mathieson and Gillard. We need sources from today, stating they are partners, now the country is beginning to realise they never lived together and do not live together in the Lodge and therefore Haydon cannot help Albo as the First Lady (when she works full-time in a different State of Australia to him) with the 'meeting and greeting' duties at the Lodge. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the Lodge is the criterion, then Margie Abbott fails. Tony Abbott never occupied the Lodge because it was undergoing major renovations for the entirety of his term. Instead, when in Canberra he stayed at the Australian Police College in (?) Brisbane Avenue. To the best of my knowledge, Margie never stayed there with him. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but instead of renaming the article, we could just define in the lede what we mean by "spouse". For ex, "Spouse in this article means either a prime minister's legally married spouse, or de facto partner, or someone generally identified as their partner". -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, just make up our own definition? StAnselm (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stipulative definition. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a stipulative definition has merit, but I would suggest renaming the article to "Partner of ..." and then defining partner. "Partner" has a broader meaning than "spouse" - the media apparently refer to Haydon as Albanese's partner, not spouse; so ought we.
Or perhaps "Significant other". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The move to "List of spouses and partners of the prime minister of Australia" will be consistent with the equivalent pages for Ireland, France, and the UK. A definition of partner and who is included and who isn't can be included in the body of the article.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is no definition I've come across for "spouse" that Haydon would meet, and adding "and partners" follows convention at similar articles internationally in solving this exact problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me where your so called "convention" is for including "partner" of PMs, apart from France? It is just the "Spouse" of the PM or President in the United Kingdom, India, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, Malaysia among others. No other Wikipedia article uses other titles apart from "spouse". Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No other Wikipedia articles ... "? How about:
List of spouses and partners of Icelandic presidents
List of spouses or partners of the Taoiseach
First Ladies and Partners of California WWGB (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Jodie Haydon and Albo are the ONLY girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/domestic partner relationship where the leader of any country on the planet does not actually live with his or her spouse. Also every single country which has a Wikipedia article about spouses (or partners) of the PM or President defines "partner" as "domestic partner". And the key criteria for a "domestic partner" is you actually LIVE TOGETHER. I am waiting for the uniquely made up, constructed, engineered wording to be used here in this article, to try and squeeze these two square pegs, Albo and Haydon, into the round Spouse/Domestic Partner hole when they do not want to live together. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am almost late to the party, but support Kerry's proposal - rename the article to an inclusive title, include Jodie Haydon with appropriate explanation and/or footnote. Regardless of what happens in the bedroom or the kitchen, she is acting as his partner in public life. I don't see value in "They are therefore not in a domestic partnership nor could be considered spouses." in the first paragraph of the article. The rest of the lead section gives the necessary definition and context. --Scott Davis Talk 03:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So... what happens now? Is someone going to start an WP:RM? StAnselm (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do note WP:RM says "The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus." I guess that is what has happened here, but it would still need an uninvolved editor to determine the consensus. StAnselm (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear 7-1 consensus to move the article title to Spouse or partner of the prime minister of Australia. Surely on that basis, we do not need someone else to "determine" consensus? Why not just move the page name now? WWGB (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're miscounting: there were two opposes (including JackofOz). And your redlink is not the exact wording initially proposed. StAnselm (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:StAnselm: Huh? On what basis are you interpreting my Support as Oppose? I did make an alternative suggestion as to a solution, but in the absence of that being adopted I'm still supporting this move. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JackofOz: you had said "Support, but", and I thought you meant you supported the rollback but you preferred to keep the article title as is. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything after "support" is inherently of a lower priority. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the two remaining issues are whether we have the word "list" and whether "minister" is plural. Does, for example List of spouses and partners of the prime minister of Australia make it sound like the current PM has a long list of partners? StAnselm (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "list" as there is much more content than just a list. Also, prefer "or" for the reason outlined above. Hence, Spouse or partner of the prime minister of Australia. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with not saying "list of" unless we split the non-list to a separate article (and there isn't enough of it to need that). I think the nouns should either all be plural - "Spouses and partners of prime ministers of Australia" - or all singular - "Spouse or partner of the prime minister of Australia". The current title uses the singular form. Singluar tends to focus towards the role, plural towards the people who have been in it. --Scott Davis Talk 14:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haydon does not live in the Lodge with Albo and works full time in Sydney[edit]

Haydon does not live in the Lodge and works full time in Sydney. The current article does not account for this as EVERY single other domestic partner of ANY PM in history has actually lived together. I would like to rewrite a section about this as the article currently says... "By convention, the spouse of the prime minister serves as the host of The Lodge and Kirribilli House, the official residences of the prime minister and also assists the prime minister in welcoming foreign dignitaries to Parliament House and various other locations during ceremonial events" Haydon does none of this and she works fulltime in Sydney. Therefore how does Haydon do all of the things in this article that defines who a partner is? Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, this ongoing saga is becoming very tiresome. You are a single-purpose account whose sole focus since joining Wikipedia three weeks ago has been a fixation with the Albanese-Haydon living arrangements. Haydon has certainly joined Albanese at "various other locations during ceremonial events". She will not be the first SPPMA to reside outside Canberra (see Elizabeth Chifley). Perhaps Haydon will spend most weekends at The Lodge. Who knows? Who cares? It remains to be seen how, when and where Haydon will assist Albanese, who is only two months into a three-year term. WWGB (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Albo did what every Liberal PM since Howard has done, and lived in Kirribilli House, Haydon COULD live with him in Sydney and still do her job. WWGB is right. This really is a silly debate. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No WWGB you are way too involved in this emotionally. You are showing POV. Yes I've only edited this article and Haydon's but there is no policy i can see which says an editor cannot edit only a particular topic. I'm not edit warring and am trying to discuss these issues with other editors. Albo and his new girlfriend Haydon were not living together when they were in the same city even so yeah it matters as this article is about genuine committed domestic partnerships of each PM. You've also dodged my issue here with this section and instead have just unilaterally put your own little version of text and POV as to how YOU want the article to read. Which is very tiring indeed. Cruiseoutbreak (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"this article is about genuine committed domestic partnerships of each PM". According to whom? WWGB (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cruiseoutbreak: You are quite correct that you don't have to contribute to more than one article, but, as a new contributor, you don't have a good understanding of our policies. In particular your arguments are about whether Jaydon is or isn't in a certain type of relationship. This is not the point of this Talk page to determine "the truth" of the matter. It is about how to progress the article in accordance with our policies. The relevant policy in this conversation is the policy of Neutral point of view, which is why we do not have to decide what the relationship between them is or isn't. It is our job to provide the reader with the information for them to make up their own minds using reliably-sourced material. We have reliable sources describing them as "partners", Haydon accompanying Albo to Europe, etc, but we also have sources indicating they don't live together. So long as this is all provided to the reader, we have done our job. Some people will read the information and say to themselves, as you do, "I don't think she's really his partner", others will think "it's a bit unusual but relationships are pretty different these days" or whatever. What we cannot do is omit her as clearly some sources do regard her as his partner, but equally we have to provide the information that makes some people question the nature of the relationship. Kerry (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spouse_or_partner_of_the_prime_minister_of_Australia&oldid=1209336133"