Talk:Harry Jenkins

Using youtube vids as refs is questionable...

Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Especially since the Kevin Rudd and the list of Speakers on the Speaker of the House page shows says not true. Duggy 1138 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment.

I wasn't trying to be pedantic, I just couldn't see the point of the additional link. I know you were trying to make a point by getting rid of the extra link, but, hey, I like it. I makes sense to me to have gotten rid of it. Thanks, I hadn't noticed it was there. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And I didn't notice the first two were there, shows how much we really look at articles. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was sure the first one was, so I checked again. I actually saw the second one while checking but it didn't register that it was the same thing, so yeah, it goes to show how much we really look at articles. Duggy 1138 (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Honourable

We go into chapter and verse about how he prefers not to be known as "the Honourable", yet we apply it to him anyway in the infobox.

It's a bit like media outlets that report how newly appointed honorary British knights must not be called "Sir", and in the next breath they talk about the latest doings of a celebrity they refer to as "Sir Bob Geldof". Very irritating. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening the 43rd Parliament

I think some mention should be made of the cute bit Jenkins did when he resumed the position of Speaker in 2010, where he was jokingly restrained by two aides as he pretended to resist returning to his seat. It was one of the most memorable images of the formation of the Gillard government (especially considering all the controversy surrounding whether the position would be given to Rob Oakeshott). I didn't put it straight in because I figured I might be alone in my appreciation of the moment. I found an image of it here: [1]. It's number eight. Sheavsey33 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall Jenkins doing the same after the election of the Rudd government. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's traditional and that all speakers do it when parliament is opened (from memory, it's a tradition inherited from the British parliament and signifies that the speaker is reluctant to take up the job). Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It actually says just that in the source of the photos ("Punch favourite Harry Jenkins feigned the customary reluctance when he was nominated as Speaker - a Westminster custom that stems from the office having the traditional duty of reporting to the King or Queen, who might not be happy about decisions of parliament."). Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

See Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom): Upon the passage of the motion, the Speaker-elect is expected to show reluctance at being chosen; he or she is customarily "dragged unwillingly" by MPs to the Speaker's bench.[3] This custom has its roots in the Speaker's original function of communicating the Commons' opinions to the monarch. Historically, the Speaker, representing the House to the Monarch, potentially faced the Monarch's anger and therefore required some persuasion to accept the post. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Order. ORDAAHHH.

"The 'Honourable' Member for Sturt is warned."

We'll miss you, Harry.

Sudden and unexpected resignation

Was Jenkins' resignation sudden and unexpected? I suggest that it was and included on page references to theat fact, yet it has been suggested that they be removed. Let's move discussion here and determine worthly of inclusion or not.

1. ABC News says sudden in the opening paragraph in their lead article; with unexpected a little later.
2. ABC Opinion piece from Annabel Crabb mentions neither.
3. ABC News says surprise and shock
4. SMH says "Jenkins shocked MPs..." and "...caught the Parliament by surprise."
5. SMH Opinion piece from Michelle Grattan mentions neither.
6. News.com.au journalist Malcolm Farr says shock
7. ABC PM headlines it story as Jenkins' surprise resignation, and later in the report "his resignation today took all but a very select few by surprise."
8. Ten News lead story says "the House Speaker has suddenly resigned.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. Should we restore the removed phrase of "in sudden and unexpected circumstances"? Jherschel (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Certainly, the press gallery are claiming that they were caught on the hop, as were most (nearly all) observers. Colonel Tom 11:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not the media, we have no need to sensationalise. Mal Colston anyone? We all know Jenkins stood down for the good of the party, it's not news, what would have been news is if he kicked up a public stink about it. Timeshift (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed that wording only as it was a bit tabloid and meaningless. The key issue was that the wording didn't identify to whom or when his resignation was "sudden" or "unexpected". Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that parliamentary resignations happen instantaneously, being effective from the moment the letter of resignation is received by the Speaker, or in the Speaker's own case, from the moment the letter is received by the Governor-General, they are all sudden. That is, they cannot be made effective from any time in the future, e.g. 2 weeks time.

Some might be expected, though, e.g. if the person had some time earlier unofficially signalled their intention to resign, as often happens these days. That was not the case here. So, his resignation was unexpected, and we don't need to use the word "sudden". Some journos might be using the word '"sudden'" to mean "I was not aware of it before it happened". That would be a synonym for "unexpected". That's another reason for not using the word "sudden". I've made that change. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The adjectives (sudden and unexpected) are unnecessary. They add nothing to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831185050/http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=11777&TABLE=BIOGS to http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?id=11777&table=BIOGS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602064750/http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr310511.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr310511.pdf

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Jenkins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712170825/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HH4 to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HH4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712170825/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HH4 to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=HH4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904042700/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/speaker.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/speaker.htm

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)