Talk:Annastacia Palaszczuk

Why the weird pronunciation?

So her surname is polish, yeah? Anglicised it would be pronounced something like pa-lAz-chook, where the z is like the s in measure. But no, she (and I assume her father) pronounce it palA-shay. WTF? How do you even get shay out of chook? Are queenslanders really that bad at reading and pronouncing 'foreign' name? This is the state that had to deal with Bjelkepetersen, Byel-key, surely a good aussie word like chook isn't beyond them. Anyway, does anyone know? 60.240.207.146 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not because it was more or less difficult to pronounce, but because it sounded like the "good aussie word" 'chook' that Annastacia's father decided to pronounce the name a different way. I know a few people whose migrant ancestors have altered their name's native pronunciation or spelling because it sounds like a slang word or insult in their new country. --Canley (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Although, chook is not too uncommon a nickname, though, but usually due to having the surname Fowler or similar. The earliest reference to the pronunciation is in Hansard from 1985, where her father (also an MP) corrected the pronunciation of his name. Since he was elected in 1984, I suspect there might not be an earlier reference on the record. It may have even been his parents that altered the pronunciation. They would have arrived in very white times, and reffo kids did often have a hard time growing up. 60.240.207.146 (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely sure about that. Apparently her nickname in her final year at school was 'Chook' and her father was already in Parliament at the time. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

In any case, it's not hard to imagine that a pollie, particularly a Labor pollie, wouldn't want to be known as the Palace Chook! Ptilinopus (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

still gives no right to this site to change the truth as Wikipedia does all the time.. 193.116.239.223 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The "truth" is that this is how her father and she both pronounce their own surname. That's the end of the matter. As to why it changed from the "correct" Polish pronunciation, that's not of concern to this article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The "weird" pronunciation does not make sense. Either keep the original, Polish pronunciation, or anglicize it as much as you need to in order to make it easier to pronounce for English speakers. But "Palashay"? Please, where does it come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.128.232.103 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether it is "right" or "wrong" isn't the issue here, it's what is in common use. If you listen to radio/TV news (e.g. [1] [2], the pronunciation that is *used* consistently is what is here in the article. In the 2nd URL at about 42 seconds, you will hear her say her name as she takes the oath of office. Kerry (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I’d love to know! How many -szczuk names are there? Is it a Qld thing; an Aussie thing; or most “Englanders”? Why not change the spelling? MBG02 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Then we have Daniel Ricciardo, pron. as "Ricahdo". Nobody has any trouble saying Christina Ricci's surname as "Richy", but add an -ardo on and all bets are off. Ah, Australia, the most multicultural nation on Earth, whose citizens have the greatest proportion of tin ears of any country. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Premier-elect

She is Premier-elect until sworn in on 14 February. 203.9.185.136 (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091216103950/http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au:80/view/legislativeAssembly/documents/memberBio/PalaszczukAnnastacia.htm to http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/legislativeAssembly/documents/memberBio/PalaszczukAnnastacia.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article seems to be getting repeatedly vandalised with biased political opinions relating to the February 2016 lockout laws. 1.132.96.117 (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection, which might help a little. LynwoodF (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Its no surprise the article is being repeatedly vandalised. Anastasia Palazczuk has promised but not delivered and some downright hate her. 🌌ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Harsh Anti-Protester Laws

Yet to be added is an approved summary of recent actions that are introducing increasingly stricter anti-protester laws. 110.175.82.149 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Results of 2020 election inappropriately referenced

Annastacia Palaszczuk is a Member of Parliament who was up for re-election in the 2020 State General Election. The article discusses this briefly in the opening and the 2020 election section.

She led Labor to further victories at the 2017 and 2020 elections, making her the first Australian female Premier to win three terms in Government.[3]

Editors should be mindful that results are not yet known for the majority of seats, with votes still being counted at the time of writing. No results were known when the above was written. Many news articles have been published speculating on the results.

The introduction references an article by The Guardian written before the results for any electorate were known.

Annastacia Palaszczuk says she is confident Labor has won a clear majority in Queensland, and she becomes the first woman in the nation’s history to win three consecutive elections. [emphasis added]

— The Guardian, Queensland election: Annastacia Palaszczuk wins historic third term

The article does not support the assertion she won the election, despite the headline. Instead it discusses her speculation and personal confidence that the Australian Labor Party will win a clear majority.

Only two seats have been declared as at 4 November 2020, both only declared today. One of these is Inala, Ms Palaszczuk’s electorate. Authoritative information is available from the Electoral Commission of Queensland, who are conducting the election.

When discussing a presently-underway election, editors should be especially mindful to use sources meeting the Verifiability guideline. News articles written before an outcome being discussed was known, should not be used to support assertions about which candidate won. ExoticViolet (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Declaration of results in every electorate is not necessary when the overall outcome is clear. The electoral commission is not the only verifiable source of overall results, and knowledgable analysis and projection of the results by media outlets can be used to make a reasonable call on the winner. It would be silly for Wikipedia to say nothing about the outcome for three, four or six weeks after an election until every electorate is declared by the relevant electoral commission when every media outlet and election analyst is clear on the overall outcome (if not the exact final tally of seats). The opposition leader has conceded defeat, which is pretty much unheard of if there is any chance whatsoever of victory. Also, on many occasions, governors and governors-general have sworn in governments and cabinets based on clear outcomes before any, let alone most, seats have been officially declared based on reasoned analysis of provisional results. --Canley (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Declaration of results in every electorate is not necessary when the overall outcome is clear
— User:Canley 05:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This may sometimes be true, as was the case for her seat of Inala, however the introduction makes implicit claims about the overall election results. There is a diversity of viewpoints on how substantial this might be and it is certainly still speculation, even if reasoned. [L]ead Labor to further victories at the... 2020 elections is quite emotive language suggesting

1. her party won a majority of seats in the 2020 Queensland state election,
2. as a distinct product of her efforts.

These are substantial claims, distinct from the results of clear electorates like her own.

The expectation that Labor will win a majority of seats is widely held however there is uncertainty on the degree of this. Many electorates usually won by LNP, for example, could be won by slight majority following the distribution of preferences; this is disputed and remains uncertain, due to the narrow margins and increase in minor party votes. In any case, it is inappropriate to make such a substantial claim based on the view of a single source.

The claim that Ms Palaszczuk [L]ead Labor to... victor[y] is not a neutral description of events; it might be considered puffery. It is certainly not of a dispassionate, encyclopaedic sytle. The claim that Labor will or has won a majority of seats, due to her efforts is likely to be a lot more contentious. The point of view is not universal and should not be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Only a single source is relied upon, which is unlikely to be compatible with presenting a balanced viewpoint. See WP:PUFFERY, WP:EPSTYLE, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:BALANCE.

The electoral commission is not the only verifiable source of overall results, and knowledgable analysis and projection of the results by media outlets can be used to make a reasonable call on the winner.
— User:Canley 05:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is disputable prior to these results actually being known; the claim might be more applicable to other articles. Media organisations' speculation prior to official publication of results, is inherently opinion. The article on Ms Palaszczuk is a biography of a living person, not the election results. Special caution is required under BLP policy to keep a dispassionate tone, not rely on current events, and present the balanced views of different sources. Characterising her as having personally driven Labor to "victory" because The Guardian said so, is certainly not consistent with that.

It would be silly for Wikipedia to say nothing about the outcome for three, four or six weeks after an election...
— User:Canley 05:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I am hardly suggesting avoiding the topic altogether, until all results are finalised. Rather, I am emphasising the need to keep a balanced, dispassionate, perspective and to judiciously and critically select source material. This is particularly prominent for this article, given it is a biography of a living person.

Nonetheless, it is appropriate to question whether a Wikipedia article on Annastacia Palaszczuk really needed to include the views of The Guardian, as expressed in a midnight article published six hours after polling closed. The Wikipedia article was updated hours after its publication.

The opposition leader has conceded defeat, which is pretty much unheard of if there is any chance whatsoever of victory.
— User:Canley 05:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not really relevant. The personal views of the former LNP leader are not appropriate to be relied on in an encyclopaedic article. Her concession is a social norm and courtesy which has no bearing on the election outcome itself. Candidates do not have the lawful power to concede an election to another candidate, in Queensland.

Also, on many occasions, governors and governors-general have sworn in governments and cabinets based on clear outcomes before any, let alone most, seats have been officially declared based on reasoned analysis of provisional results.
— User:Canley 05:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This again is not really relevant to a Queensland context. By convention, some binding, the Governor of Queensland does not appoint Ministers prior to the completion of an underway election. The Governor has certainly given no such indication here, or in recent Queensland state elections, that they intend to or would consider it. Their choice to do so could see them dismissed from office, in Queensland, and is not held by any sources to be a likely occurence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExoticViolet (talk • contribs)

Not strictly true, in Queensland caretaker conventions end when the opposition leader concedes defeat (or when it is "clear" the government has won enough seats to hold government), so concession is not a courtesy with no effect on the election process. --Canley (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Guardian article used as a reference is referring to Palaszczuk's confidence in retaining a parliamentary majority. The statement in the Wikipedia articles on Palaszczuk and the election are about Labor winning a third term in government (possibly in a minority), which the source (and many others) is unequivocal about. --Canley (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Polish

“Polish: Annastacia Pałaszczuk”, in Polish her name would of been Anastazja, not Annastacia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:A23:8801:84C1:2886:21F6:B2ED (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

But in English, her name would have been since "of" does not belong in a modal verb. 49.179.16.148 (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Amicably

In the article, amicably is in Scare quotes here:

Palaszczuk and Drabsch split 'amicably' in February 2018.

Either Szcz and Bsch "split amicably in February 2018" if that's a direct quote from the reference or they split amicably in February 2018 if it's a paraphrase but the scare quotes around amicably do not benefit the reader. Maybe some contributor had an unknown axe to grind and used scare quotes, but this isn't the place for that.

I propose removing the apostrophes from the excerpt I quoted. 49.179.16.148 (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Reference to her nickname Palachook?

Should we add a reference perhaps in the lead, or personal life section about her nickname "Palachook'? This is in common use in Queensland and somewhat resembles the traditional pronunciation in her native Polish, as discussed in the topic above. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)