Talk:Peter Slipper

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

Cabcharges[edit]

Does anyone want to update about his cabcharges as reported today?

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

Does anyone have a source for his birthdate? I've removed it for now.—C45207 | Talk 08:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Timeshift9.—C45207 | Talk 08:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct style[edit]

According to established style conventions "The Reverend" comes before "The Honourable" when someone is entitled to both styles - so, while it may be complicated, his correct style should be "The Reverend and Honourable Peter Slipper". I don't expect he will be styled this way in Parliament but it is still formally correct. If anyone wants to discuss this then please do so - but don't just assume that his being a priest is somehow "secondary" in terms of his correct style. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only people that I'm aware of are Fred Nile, styled in the manner of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, and Gordon Moyes, styled Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. Whilst Slipper may be a minister, Parliament describes him as Hon Peter Slipper MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives and surely this should be the manner is which he is styled for this article. Jherschel (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What parliament may do in this respect doesn't determine what is done in Wikipedia articles. The style policies or practices of Parliament don't have some kind of overiding authority in such matters on here. I expect that he is styled as "The Reverend and Honourable Peter Slipper" within his church so why is this somehow lesser than parliament? And in both the other cases you've mentioned the style is not correct according to the traditional format. Anglicanus (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no sources for this usage as being applied to Slipper outside of your own assertion. Rebecca (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The way he's referred to in parliament is more important, because that's his primary claim to notability. Being chancellor of the Anglican church is very much the secondary thing he's notable for (excuse my excessive use of split infinitives). So I agree with JHerschel that Wikipedia should follow the parliament for guidance on order of his honorifics. Donama (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" has absolutely nothing to do with it. If he is entitled to the style of "The Reverend" (which he is: see his church's journal website at http://www.themessenger.com.au/news03_04%202005.htm) then it is entirely appropriate and correct to include it in his Wikipedia article regardless of how parliament styles him. People are often styled differently in different contexts (and not always correctly) and Slipper was a member of parliament for some years before he was ordained so it is understandable that his style in parliament doesn't reflect his new status. But if we are trying to be formally correct about his style - which we ought to be in Wikipedia articles - then the most correct form is "The Reverend and Honourable" in that order. This is the established style convention for clerics who are also entitled to use "The Honourable". See also the Wikipedia article for Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury (though in his particular case he is styled as "The Most Reverend and Right Honourable"). Anglicanus (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chill out, Anglicanus. I think it is worth noting the reference from a letters page at The Messenger Journal is hardly a reliable source. And just because Williams is styled in the manner in a different place (as a member of the House of Lords), does not mean that Slipper should be styled in the same manner, as a member of the Australian House of Representatives. My points are twofold:
1. I can find no reference for including the word and following Reverend, but before Honourable. If you can find credible reference to use of and, I'd be happy to reconsider my firmly held view that the word be removed on the basis of Nile and Moyes (given that we are relying on Australian examples).
2. All MPs, including the Speaker, are able to nominate to the Department of Parliamentary Services (or their State/Territory counterparts) how they would like to be styled. I can only assume, as it would appear does Donama, that Slipper asked to be styled as The Honourable. We should respect his wishes and no force ours onto his, without clear evidence. Jherschel (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jherschel. I would be reluctant to follow a claimed formal styling that is not used in any of the key sources regarding the particular individual. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slipper is more than a just member of parliament and how he is styled in parliament or anywhere else doesn't determine how Wikipedia articles are edited. This article is not just about him as an MP and insisting that only his style in parliament determines this issue is just as problematic as someone insisting that only his clerical style should be used. The fact is that he has two styles - "The Reverend" and "The Honourable" and if people haven't found any examples of how these are combined in the established use of "The Reverend and Honourable" then they aren't looking very hard. Try all of these for starters: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Whether he chooses to style himself this way in parliament or anywhere else is another matter but no one can convincingly argue that this isn't actually the most correct way for him to be styled. In any case this issue is beginning to turn into one of the lamest debates in the history of Wikipedia. So I suggest we all "chill out". Anglicanus (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jherschel on this one. If Slipper has indicated that his preferred style is "The Hon.", and especially without a single source that lists him as "The Rev. and Hon.", then this appears pretty simple. A comparable example would be the Greens in the NSW Upper House, who all eschew the "Hon." title they're entitled to. Frickeg (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's relevant that there are precedents for using the title 'Reverend and Honourable' around the world. The point is that the article should take its lead from the parliament's documentation on the matter of title. And, for the record, quite chilled by the overnight weather change :) Donama (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening all. I travelled through the Blue Mountains today and it was absolutely freezing! Now, on matters of substance. Given that Anglicanus is the one proposing the change from "The Honourable" to The Reverend and Honourable" I believe it is up to this user to provide evidence of method of style that comes from reputable sources. To me, a letters page from a journal is not reputable, and neither is throwing the abbreviated terms into a search engine that brings up a whole list of people, none of whom are Australian, and none of which clearly states the correct method of style. Other than that, I can only see lots of opinion. Thanks for the support and humour, Donama. Jherschel (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slipper remains Speaker[edit]

Slipper has not resigned the speakership and constitutionally remains as the Speaker. The situation is the same as were he to be away on leave or sick. As such there won't need to be a vote to reelect him if the allegations are cleared. He will simply resume the chair. Jmount (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the House of Rep's twitter correctly points out SO 18(a) applies here: "18. House informed of absences (a) If the Speaker is absent the Deputy Speaker shall be the Acting Speaker." Point is, he is still Speaker, he is just absenting himself for a while. Jmount (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
exclamation mark  He has resigned now according to Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) news! - 220 of Borg 08:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of importance[edit]

The alleged sexual harassment stuff has, understandably, got all the media headlines, but the alleged travel entitlement abuse is far more serious. If it's proven and he's convicted, he could lose his eligibility to continue to hold his seat in parliament. That wouldn't be the case if the sexual harassement matter is proven. Accordingly, I've given the travel matter top billing. ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about his cabcharge dockets? Does anyone know if they had to behanded in, because it seems a bit odd to me??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.140.29.157 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Comma in opening sentence.

Already removed, never mind.

Too easy. Dru of Id (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UAP membership[edit]

Whether he was ever actually a member of this party now seems in doubt. Either way, I'm far from convinced that the infobox and all the other pages (Division of Fisher, etc.) should be listing him as a member of a party that he was at best involved with for a few hours. There was a precedent with Karyn Paluzzano's day-long status as an independent, I believe. Frickeg (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, didn't notice that someone had already stuck it in the Infobox. At least the time frame is right. If it happened at all, it was only on the given single date. But I agree, it seems pointless. I think we're stuck in the weekend reporting period, when getting accurate information from a fledgling party is never going to be easy. For now I'd probably remove it from the Infobox, leave the text in the lead, and wait for better information to turn up. (If it ever does.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add to the confusion, I've just read that Palmer has renamed his party to the much more humble Palmer United Party. I'm sure we would have an article on it somewhere. Not sure if I can be bothered updating it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This puppy has already had its day. Mark my words. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... if he's elected prime minister". He certainly shares wildly unrealistic ambitions with Katter. Frickeg (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this for him: at least he's actually following constitutional procedure and standing for parliament, which is more than could ever be said for that totally mindless "Joh for Canberra" campaign in 1987. He wanted to become PM without bothering with all that pesky parliament stuff. Fat chance. And thousands of supposedly rational people fell for it. Just unbelievable. Strange things are still coming out of Queensland. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 04:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Slipper. 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: 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 04:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Slipper. 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: 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) 08:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Slipper&oldid=1208360134"