Talk:Malcolm Turnbull/Archive 1

Autobiography
I reverted an edit that claimed that he published an autobiography in 1997. Coolcat says that no library in Victoria has a copy of such a book, which they certainly would if he had done so. --Robert Merkel 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Turnbull's name isn't grant...
While I haven't been able to confirm that his middle name is Bligh, his initial is definitely B. --Robert Merkel 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

His middle name is Bligh - his electoral disclosure return has it on the first page. 60.241.168.215 08:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
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 23:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Widespread belief that Malcolm Turnbull will become Opposition Leader soon
I am sure many of you have read that there is a widespread belief amongst Liberal Party figures that Brendan Nelson does not have what it takes to lead the Liberal Party at the next election, and that Malcolm Turnbull will occupy the position soon. I have added a section relating to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.36.2 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well he is now (as of 16 September). --Canley (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

First or Second Roman Catholic to lead the Federal Liberals
I see the Herald Sun claims Turnbull is the first but according to one Wiki user Brendan Nelson is Catholic. Since the Herald Sun has a poor record on reality can we check this fact. --Godianus the Finder (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is no copyright mention, does that mean an image is public domain?
I note that Turnbull's image gallery, and the website in general, is noteably without any copyright symbols, wording, or other copyright disclaimers for the entire site. It is as if there is no applicable copyright on any content on his page, including photos. The only disclaimer page has no mention of copyright. Can images be uploaded from that site using the public domain tag? Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, copyright owners don't need to do anything to "claim" copyright, so unless there's some explicit reason to believe the image has been placed in the public domain, we must assume it is not. -- Mark Chovain 05:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Turney
His nickname was "Turney". My dad went to school with him. Sydney Grammar Preparatory School. Dad knew him in English class.


 * His private nickname may well be "Turney" but if it isn't used by the general public (e.g. how people call Robert Hawke, Bob Hawke) then it shouldn't be added here. Unless you can show that the general public reffer to him as "Turney", then it won't be added. I can't find evidence of it on google. Kyle sb 07:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is fairly safe to assume members of the public would call him Turney. It's an obvious Australian nickname based on his surname. Further, given that it was his private nickname in the past ensures that some proportion of the general public DO call him Turney. If he were more well-known, I'm sure "Turney" would crop up every so often. As it stands there is no way for me to categorically prove it, but I assure you it's true. LiberalMP 23:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Verifiability. "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Cheers, michael talk 02:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see what you're saying, but even if you didn't trust what I'm saying (and I am not offended if you don't, obviously one must approach all edits with scepticism) then it is fairly obvious, in Australia, that people receive nicknames based on their surnames. This is not an opinion, viewpoint, theory or an argument. It is fairly safe to infer that some significant proportion of people who know he exists will refer to him as "Turney". It is clearly not a disparaging nickname designed to offend.


 * Isn't part of the point of Wikipedia that information that is otherwise inaccessible is readily available? The point is, that wiki provides an avenue through which people who know things can contribute. If sources are demanded for even the most obvious of facts, wouldn't Wiki just end up being a one-for-one linking to Britannica? (Sorry if this has become a rant). LiberalMP 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the Wiki ends up being a one-to-many linking with millions of books, newspaper articles, journal articles, webpages, and so on. Because of the nature of Wikipedia (there's no one editor responsible for claiming something is factually accurate) the only way we can provide any information to judge accuracy is by providing references to where information is obtained.  Yes, sometimes some very widely-known facts are not referenced.  But this is not the case for Malcolm Turnbull's nickname.  --Robert Merkel 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Should this page be locked off to end this "Turney" sillines?
 * KivuliLesOmbre 08:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not yet. Action will be taken directly regarding the user involved if the additions without references persist. michael talk 08:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't just add "Turney" into the front of an article, because it's the claimed nickname of a politician. Does this mean we put "Johny" in John Howard or "Downie" on Alexander Downer? Both of those could well be their nicknames. If "Turney" is his nickname and it is used publicly you can add a source (in the article or at least on this discussion page) so we can verify it should be included. Kyle sb 11:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose the difference is that no one is asserting that Howard/Downer have the name. The assertion is that Turner does have the nickname, but that if you don't accept the assertion then there is the "fall back" of typical Australianism. The thing is with a nickname, you can't find it anywhere else, so there will never be a source. I don't think that means it shouldn't be in the Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is where you can find out this stuff. Spincycle666 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to insert "Turney" again; it's obviously not worth it. However, I don't understand this. I see that you want material to be reliable and all that. But kids aren't exactly going to be referencing wiki for a school assignment, and if they do, they are remiss in their studies. The information I am trying to insert is clearly not malicious: I am not trying to insert a nickname like "Idiot" or anything.

The irony is, if I was truly trying to ensure people had this information, I could just repeatedly enter it, make a new wiki id, edit it 3 more times, make a new wiki id etc. The way I see it, wiki has a unique advantage: everywhere else, you need water-tight sources, but here, a thing stays unless someone knows it to be false. That way, you get this information that you CANNOT get anywhere else. People insert it, then all the people on the web can peruse it and remove it IF IT IS KNOWN TO BE FALSE. I try and insert things that are clearly not malicious (and why a person would insert these things randomly is beyond me) and people are removing it because it doesn't have a source. They don't know it's false, just that someone else hasn't said it before.

But if you don't want this info, it's fine with me, you're just limiting the info that's on wiki. It's that little bit less you know about the world. LiberalMP 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Plenty of people *have* tried to insert wrong or malicious material into Wikipedia (and sometimes succeed). That's why Wikipedia editors have gotten increasingly nitpicky when it comes to sourcing material, particularly on living persons.  I refer you to this story to give you some idea about why we've gotten so anal.  --Robert Merkel 04:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * True, and fitting, however that related to an issue that suggested the individual was complicit in a crime. "Turney" is not insulting at all, and certainly doesn't suggest a crime. Furthermore, it is fairly safe to assume (if you don't believe me) that it is true. If someone was trying to insert something wrong/malicious, why would they insert something that, on balance, is likely true anyway? It's like the guy in the movie breaking out of jail one day before release, it just doesn't make sense. LiberalMP 05:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this argument has got off track. The points are:
 * Whether or not it is true or inoffensive, "Turney" is not a publicly used nickname, so it doesn't have any place in an encyclopedia - any more than details about Turnbull's pets.
 * The arguments about it being a "fairly obvious" nickname are obviously irrelevant.
 * --Jack Upland 23:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I am a Turnbull, obviously my entire family are Turnbull's, therefore I know like forty Turnbull's and not ONE has ever been called Turney, so no it's not a common name, or an "obvious nickname" and in any case, why the heck is it so important? It's just a nickname and I am sure no-one here is worse off for having not known that he was, at one point in his life called a certain name by one person --Dulberf 06:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Turnbull might have been known to his school friends as "Turney", but since his entry into public life over 25 years ago I've never heard anyone, in public or private, ever refer to him as such. Certain individuals, such as LiberalMP, might choose to, but that doesn't make it a widespread nickname or anything that's remotely encyclopedic.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact tag on 'Turnbull has always been politically aligned with the Liberal Party'
For once I agree with User:Lester. This is what is left from a longer sentence that was a bit SYNTH/OR-ey. Since there is some doubt as to whether Turnbull may have tried to get a Labor Senate spot, I think the sentence should be removed. --Surturz (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * His schoolkid writings (discussed below) show that Turnbull wasn't "always" aligned to the Libs.-- Lester  10:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Turnbull for the 1994 Labor casual vacancy?
"Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese had his turn with the old claim that in 1994 Turnbull had tried to get get a casual Labor vacancy in the Senate.

"A former Labor member (Nelson) replaced by a person who wanted to be a Labor senator," Albanese marvelled.

Turnbull, after his first two questions, took no further action, leaving the interrogation to his backbenchers.

Nor did he react to the jeers and sneers, spending most of the time reading or writing.

At the end, he did say of Albanese's claim: "That is, as he knows, quite untrue."

But even then he smiled."

and

"But it was about him, and the Government did not hesitate to disinter the old story about Turnbull seeking a Labor Senate vacancy in 1994. "We have seen a former Labor Party member replaced by someone who wanted to be a Labor senator," squawked Anthony Albanese.

(Turnbull later declared the story "quite untrue", but his smile was rich as pound cake.)"

I happened to see this on Order in the House on the ABC, so naturally i went to look it up a bit more, but theres only odd references to it such as the above? What happened exactly? Timeshift (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I can see there was nothing publicly reported about it at the time (or at least not on Factiva). He did, apparently, somewhat bizarrely discuss joining the Democrats with Cheryl Kernot. Rebecca (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, Abanese's claim is also covered by The Australian.-- Lester  00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From your link Lester:

"Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese portrayed Mr Turnbull as an ambitious opportunist, saying that in 1994 he had held discussions with former Labor prime minister Paul Keating about taking a casual Senate vacancy for the Labor Party after the retirement of former factional power brokers Graham Richardson. "It is common knowledge in the Labor Party that the new Leader of the Opposition went to Kirribilli to meet with then prime minister Keating about getting the casual Senate vacancy," Mr Albanese said.

"We have seen a former Labor Party member (Dr Nelson) replaced by someone who wanted to be a Labor senator."

Mr Turnbull, a previous head of the Australian Republican Movement, said last night he had never been a member of any party other than the Liberal Party."

Turnbull is keeping eerily silent on it which makes it harder to determine if there is another side to the story. How do we go about adding the above? Timeshift (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there would need to be a source other that the ALP to justify inclusion. Otherwise it is just rumour-mongering by his political opponents. OTOH if Paul Keating confirmed the rumour, it might be notable. --Surturz (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be added with the qualification that it is a claim by Labor or Albanese. That lets the reader decide. It's an interesting claim about Turnbull's background. Either Albanese or Turnbull is not telling the truth.-- Lester  02:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact he hasn't denied it, and made a point that he was never a "member" of the ALP, says what it needs to say. The question is, how to go about adding the claim and his reaction in an NPOV way without going all SYNTHy. Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Two years ago, Turnbull denied ever considering Labor preselection. "When Richo [former senator Graham Richardson] retired from Parliament, Keating rang me and asked me to come over and see him at Kirribilli House. Keating said to me, 'you should be in Parliament … and we can arrange for you to have Richardson's casual vacancy'. And I said to Paul, that was very flattering but I didn't think I would be comfortable in the Labor Party, nor would it be comfortable with me. And that was where we left it. He subsequently got Richardson to call and both Richardson and I agreed [against it]."" Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Turnbull "rubbishes" Lib legacy
How Master Turnbull rubbished the Libs - may assist with building the article. Timeshift (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's rather amusing. Though you won't find too many tenth grade school kids these days discussing tariffs on foreign companies accessing Australia's minerals.-- Lester  10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the entire National Party? :-) I read the article more as a Lib supporter advocating organisational change, but in any case his year ten writings are hardly relevant. However, I do think we have consensus to remove the "always support" line in the article, so I'll take it out and see if anyone reverts. --Surturz (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's relevant in that it gives a glimpse into an unusual aspect of Turnbull's past. It's unusual for a year 10 kid to be sprouting facts & figures about tariffs. It shows that even in his childhood, Turnbull was destined to be where he is today.-- Lester  02:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think one can necessarily draw that conclusion. While not typical, there'd still be many people in their final years of high school who have articulate views and opinions on politics and economics.  We never get to hear about them until such time as they actually do achieve significant things and become public figures.  Assuming they do.  If he really was "destined" to be where he is today, then he was destined from the day he was born - or earlier.  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For someone who is seen as a pure Liberal, and loyal to the cause, of course it is of note that he slags off the Libs and Menzies in a year 10 paper, the founder of the party. He called them for what they are - not progressive, not liberal, a bunch of conservatives. Turnbull says it and so do some former party leaders. It is in part (even without the history i'd believe its nn) due to the pattern in the Liberal Party that always emerges where every former leader hates every other former leader (well, almost). Timeshift (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What people believe when they're 17 and what they believe when they're 54 are usually (not always) somewhat different. You'd find many examples, from both sides of politics, of positions people once passionately held but no longer do.  This is called maturity.  It would be a sad day if the country was run by people whose political philosophy was no more mature or developed than that which they held in their school days.  So, what Turnbull wrote back then would probably be of note for a comprehensive biography showing the gradual progression of his economic and political outlook.  But for a brief encyclopedia article?  I can't really see that it has much value.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How many other former Liberal leaders have written high school essays attacking the party they now lead? One we know of. Timeshift (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you had an article about a violinist, or a musician, it would be relevant that they began playing the instrument as a child. It's just as relevant that a politician becomes involved in the subject at a youth. Just like John Howard was involved in political debates at a very young age, one of the more memorable facts about him. Turnbull was writing political essays about the Liberal Party as a schoolkid. It's highly relevant what a potential PM's political views were, earlier in life, even if those views change.-- Lester  20:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) His year ten essay was not front page news, and WP is not the place to try and push for the essay to be more widely discussed. It is simply not notable at the moment. If it gets a bit more airplay we can revisit its inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's your view, we believe otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, you are entitled to that view, but two for and two against means you don't have consensus for inclusion. --Surturz (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox - not leader of and opposition leader of
A leader of the Labor or Liberal parties will naturally be either the current Prime Minister, or current leader of the opposition. Now whilst by definition they might be different, it is quite simply wasting space when both are in the infobox, it creates duplication of the commencement of his term. Previous opp leaders havent had opp leader and party leader together, Turnbull shouldn't be any different. Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI I grabbed Rudd's page the day prior to the election, it is another possibility. Timeshift (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Please source and add information about his ownership of WebCentral, before its takeover by MelbourneIT - including any current ownership of MelbourneIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.76.141.13 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

First Republican Liberal leader
Isn't Malcolm Fraser a republican? Also, the cite for that claim is a dead link. Digestible (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes he is. Well worth seeing this youtube: . Fraser and Whitlam together supporting a yes vote for a republic. --Surturz (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholarship and Sport
We are told in the article that Turnbull was a Rhodes Scholar. One of the criteria for becoming a Rhodes Scholar is to have "fondness for and success in sports". It's usually easy to identify the particular sports that were relevant to a recipient and, because of this peculiar aspect of the Rhodes Scholarships, is of broader interest. Can we identify Turnbull's sporting passions? HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced Ramblings in the lead
Could Nick-D stop pushing Timeshift9's ramblings in the lead? A google search on "Malcolm Turnbull" does not fulfil WP:RS last time I looked. The frontbench resignations are WP:N and could be included, but should be in the body of the article. The lead should summarise the article, not be a place to push in new material. Apart from anything else, the para in question is extremely badly written - an overlong sentence with too many clauses. --Surturz (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which specific part of what I wrote do you deny is true? Please do not revert again as you are in the minority. Please instead state here what is not true. Timeshift (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My additional concerns with those additions revolve around wording like "to decide on Tuesday whether...." and "vote with the government on the CPRS by Monday or Tuesday...." Which Monday? Which Tuesday? It reads like text cobbled together in a copy and paste from a newspaper. OK for immediate news, but not in an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said in the section above this one, it was a quick job. The purpose of it was to have something there which is better than nothing. By all means, feel free to expand on or improve it, but do not remove it as it is the biggest thing to have happened to Turnbull in his entire parliamentary career, even arguably his life. Nothing said is false. If you or others think something in there is false, please tell me here. Otherwise, it does not warrant removal. Timeshift (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In a rapidly changing news situation like this, I prefer nothing to attempts to reflect what the media claims is happening on such a frequent basis. In hindsight, media reporting of such events is almost always seen to be inaccurate. This is not a tabloid news site. It's a place where we should record what we can see really happened once the dust has settled. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is quality and location, not content. I have no problem with what is said in that para, only how it is said, and where it is. Also, the criteria for WP is verifiability, not truth. It cannot be hard for you to find quality WP:RS to support the text. If you have time to grumble on this talk page, you have time to WP:PROVEIT and copyedit your text. I agree that the stuff mentioned in the crap para is true (though current wording has a few minor POV issues), and I am entirely happy for it to be included in the body of the article if it is well written--Surturz (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's important enough to be in the lead - and if you think it should be there but worded differently then do so rather than simply removing it. I added it quickly because something was better than nothing. Then you decide to come along and simply remove it. Fix it up if you don't like the way it's worded. Timeshift (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As per WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". It's your responsibility, as the originating editor, to ensure that your addition is of quality. I'm at 3RR, so I'm not going to change the lead, so please at least change your google search "ref" to this one: . And add a few fullstops while you're at it. --Surturz (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean honestly, what does "Media reports indicate Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott are considering possible leadership intentions" even mean?? --Surturz (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you contesting? If you've found the ref why won't you fix it? I was good enough to get the ball rolling on Turnbull's most critical issue and all you can do is revert and criticise. The issues are not contentious, we know them to be true, so please act a bit more constructively if you take issue. Timeshift (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we at least clarify which Tuesday is being referred to in the article. (Along with a few other short term details) I don't think writing like that is at all encyclopaedic without much more careful date references. It's also going to be out of date and quite meaningless very quickly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just added the date of the leadership vote. The text can be improved further, and will obviously need to be updated as things develop over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being constructive Nick-D. Timeshift (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Retirements vs. Resignations
Re this: If it turns out he decides to stay in the arena after all, can we please ensure we don’t copy the really bad "withdrawing his resignation" wording used by Dennis Shanahan, who knows better than this. He knows that if an MP resigns, it becomes effective immediately the Speaker receives it. The Speaker has no constitutional authority to refuse a resignation, or to permit one he's received to be later "withdrawn". It's a done deal, no going back. Had Turnbull resigned, he'd be gone from Parliament already and they'd now be organising a by-election for Wentworth. He certainly has not resigned; all he’s done is signal his intention to retire, i.e. not contest the next election. However public that announcement may have been, it has no official bearing and he can change his mind at any time up till the close of nominations. If he does not renominate by the deadline, then and only then does he retire. If he does renominate, then he's recontesting the election. In the meantime, he can announce whatever he likes but it makes no substantial difference to anything; unless he actually resigns, which, as I say, takes effect immediately. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Major issues with recent sweeping edit
This edit, whilst may be well intentioned, is riddled with spelling errors and awkward wording. I'm raising it as I think attention should be brought to it. Timeshift (talk) 06:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

M Turnbull connection to Fairfax takeover in 1990s -Helping K Packer
In the Paul Barry biography of Kerry Packer "The Rise and Rise of Kerry Packer" (Bantam, 1993) chapter 22 "Family Feuds" makes references to Malcolm Turnbulls involvement with the take over of Fairfax newspapers. After the activities of Warwick Fairfax led to the companies collapse in 1987, M Turnbull is said to be freelancing himself to pick up some of the action of the liquidators, bondholders and financiers. It's alleged that Mr Turnbull took legal action to sue Fairfax and the bankers for $450 million in damages. The allegation is that Mr Turnbull then went to Kerry Packer and proposed that Mr Packer "should be a key player in a consortium bid for Fairfax, in which the bondholders would also have a share." There are important issues in this regarding Australian media, its independence, its influence by wealth and power, and more. As Malcolm Turnbull is a major figure in Australian political affairs these matters need extensive clarification and fact checking. Privatising ownership of the media by a few wealthy individuals is a major political decision that is on the path to totalitarianism. More information would be appreciated, thanks. Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Current unfolding events 2009
At least six Liberal MPs have resigned from shadow cabinet including Minchin and Abbott, Turnbull has agreed to allow a guillotine in the Senate for the CPRS, Senate Libs meeting at 6:30pm to take place, Sky News expecting more resignations to come in. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the bet that we're going to need to call off Articles for deletion/Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2009 by Monday afternoon as the actual event will have taken place? Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just like the Higgins Liberal candidate - delete until it actually happens. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, I agree; the AfD can't be called off yet as the event hasn't happened and still may not happen - especially as we're so close to 2010 ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Turnbull news conference in 5 minutes, speculation is he's stepping down. Those who have resigned are Abbott, Mirrabella, Parry, Fifield, Cormann, Mason and Johnson. Yet to be confirmed are Minchin, Abetz, Smith. Timeshift (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that was a fizzer. Ten resigned but Turnbull presses on. Extraordinary sequence of events tonight... Timeshift (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He should have let Nelson lose the next election before taking the leadership. He's also forgotten that the job of the Leader of the Opposition is to oppose. There is a simple argument to be made that it will be education and technology that saves the environment, not overclever economics. Do the CO2 emissions of bushfires reduce the carbon cap, is what I want to know. --Surturz (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just sit back and watch the show :)  - Lester  11:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sit back and watch financial whizkids make a motza from international carbon credit arbitrage, you mean. Not to mention short selling. --Surturz (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of Liberal MPs back the modified compromised ETS. Is there anything more to say? Oh wait, it's the Liberal Party. Silly me. Oh, and the job of opposition leader is not simply to oppose for opposition's sake. And now the unelectable mad monk with the personality of a wet dishcloth says he'll challenge for the leadership on Monday. Good times. Timeshift (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so we're now in the position where Turnbull as well as the ETS are decided on Monday. There is so much that's happened. Does anyone want to dare attempt to have a go at a contribution stating where the Liberal leadership and Liberal policy stand at the moment? Or should we not make mention of it until it's all come out in the wash? Timeshift (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added something very brief to the lead. Timeshift (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Turnbull press conference in 10 minutes. Timeshift (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And it was boring. Nothing new. Timeshift (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am very strongly of the view that we should "not make mention of it until it's all come out in the wash". This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for news flashes. Anything reported rapidly by the media can be guaranteed to have errors. Their goal is to sell stuff. Wikipedia's goal is to record facts supported by sound references. I don't regard the current news grabs as sound references.


 * In the long run no-one will be interested in the daily or even hourly machinations of the pollies. The issue(s) and the end result are really all that needs to be recorded for posterity.HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed this chapter heading by adding "2009" to clarify year of unfolding eventsErn Malleyscrub (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring is being obstinate again
He is repeatedly deleting sourced material. I've asked him to bring it to the Talk page. He won't. Just keeps deleting. I really cannot comprehend his behaviour. (I know he hates my guts, but this is just stubbornly idiotic.) The material may deserve to be deleted, but Pete's Edit summaries don't convince me. I've brought it here rather than continue Edit warring with the clown any more. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't hate anyone. I suggest you read the source and explain precisely how it supports the statement in our article. If you don't understand WP:NOR, go read that as well. --Pete (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No fucking way. It's YOU who wants to delete well established, properly sourced content, so it's YOU who needs to present the fucking case. It's called logic. If you don't hate me, maybe it's a love of the Liberal Party that's your problem. There's certainly something wrong with your thinking process. It seems to be totally driven by emotion rather than truth. See if you can find a rational thought in your brain when it comes to politics and stop acting on dogma. HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In future, it would be nice if someone could outline the actual question at issue rather than engaging in the above, which is neither useful to others nor particularly edifying. I don't necessarily think there's a problem with the source - after all, we're verifying what the critics say, although a news report would be better. However, the entire "Howard Government minister" section is pretty unbalanced, with a whole lot of "critics claim" and "although Turnbull x, critics y". Frankly the whole thing could use a rewrite. On this particular bit, I'd cut it down at the absolute minimum to one sentence, and rephrase it so that it's no longer outdated. Frickeg (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Frickeg - you ask for someone to outline the actual question at issue rather than engaging in the above. The problem was that only Pete knew what the issue was, but wouldn't discuss why was deleting well established and sourced content. That's why I brought it here. We needed discussion on why Pete was doing what he was doing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we claim certain things in our article, quote figures for greenhouse emissions and so on, and when we check the source we rely upon for this information we are providing to our knowledge-seeking readers, we find a web page that doesn't say anything much, and backs up none of our statements. Maybe it did once, I don't know. It certainly does not now. If our material is not verifiable, it cannot remain. That's wiki policy, and I endorse it with all my heart. --Pete (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Has anybody who wants the Wilderness Society claims to stay actually read the source? And WP:NOR? Hands up, please. --Pete (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since the source has an accessdate, I was able to use the Wayback Machine to read it closer to when the citation was added, which unfortunately still doesn't seem to confirm the figures (but does show how the page has changed since the source was added, so we can't discount that it may have been accurate then). Of course, this doesn't negate the need for an updated source. Here's one for the 10 million tons figure; here's one for the 2 percent figure. By all means update them. Frickeg (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's easy to sustain the criticism claim - from the expected critics - but those numbers seem to have been plucked out of thin air. Not saying they aren't good estimates, but if we are going to quote exact figures, we should have a reliable source, and neither source provide says where the original numbers came from. A guess? An EiS? Off a chat group? Anybody know? --Pete (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but since we're saying "critics claim ..." I don't think it precludes us having the information there; I certainly don't have the energy at the moment to go digging. I still maintain the whole section could use a major rewrite, since at the moment it's pretty much just a catalogue of criticisms he received while minister. Frickeg (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The last thing I want to spend my time on earth doing is defending Malcolm T, and I wonder about the relevance of all this, seeing as how he hasn't had any ministerial responsibility for the thing for several years and who knows if its going ahead anyway. Our Bell Bay Pulp Mill article has all sorts of information about the project in a long and detailed review. Apparently Bob Brown is the Greens leader. It doesn't mention anything about greenhouse emissions. Interesting to see that I have my own fan group following me round and waving placards, bless their industrious hearts. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete, thank you for at least discussing this here now. It's a shame you wouldn't do it in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Turnbull's lead photo - very suave!
Hadn't seen/noticed it in this article before. Just wanted to give feedback :) Timeshift (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Uploaded from a professional photographer who makes her work available on Flickr. Yes, I noticed it too and thought that our photography standards for Australian politicians have certainly improved! --Pete (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Seen Hockey Pete? What a transformation from his "before photo"! ;D Timeshift (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015
Malcolm Turnbull has just been elected President of the Liberal Party - and therefore is now Prime Minister of Australia. 9:45pm 14 Sep 2015

122.108.143.239 (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is incorrect, he is not PM until appointed by the governor-general. Currently PM-designate

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015
Needs to be prime minister

Connor Lenti 12:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Answer: Not until appointed by Governor General

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015
Update to include being Prime Minister of Australia on the fourteenth of September, 2015.

Sopranoaurora (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ❌ he is not yet the PM only the PM designate - Arjayay (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling of Australia.
In 'Prime Minister of Australia section, the word Australia is spelt incorrectly. Also, should currently use title of PM-designate, until he is sworn in by governor general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccapacca1 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 September 2015
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: (perhaps Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done). Hmm, I can't seem to find where this is, it is possible that it has been fixed in subsequent revisions since this request was made, but if the problem persists, please reopen this request with further details. Thank you. -- Orduin  Discuss 15:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

When will he actually become PM?
I've not seen anything in the press nor on Wikipedia about when the exact date is that he'll become PM? Or is that not yet known at this point? Siberian Husky (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ABC said on TV news show that he should be sworn in on 15 September. Wykx (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Worst. Communications. Minister. Ever?
Does anyone know if Delimiter.com.au is considered a reliable source? It gives a scathing report of Turnbull's performance as Communications Minister. 110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It clearly says "opinion" right at the start. So if it was to be included, it would have to say "Renai LeMay says he was the worst communications minister ever". So the question then is "who is Renai LeMay"? He says that he is "uniquiely qualified" to reflect on Turnbull's ability, and seems to base that qualification on the fact he was at Turnbull's first press conference as minister. Judging from the bio page and banner at the top of every page, LeMay owns and runs the delimiter.com.au website. So that would suggest there is no editorial oversight and this is basically LeMay's self-published opinion.
 * So I would want to see a more reliable source justifying LeMay's ability to assert an opinion before inserting it in the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Turnbull's rationale
Please add a discussion of Turnbull's rationale for challenging - following is a condensing of the primary source, this afternoon's speech. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In a press conference, Turnbull stated that the Prime Minister had "not been capable of providing the economic leadership" that Australia and business needed. Turnbull stated that a "style of leadership that respects the people's intelligence" was needed, and described Bill Shorten as "utterly unfit" to be the Prime Minister. Turnbull pointed out that the Liberals have lost 30 Newspolls in a row, so Shorten is likely to become Prime Minister.


 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 10:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The pic
While not as bad as some of the previous efforts, the lead photo has him looking a little startled. The bright light doesn't help the portraiture. Have we any better images, perhaps attending the opera in a top hat? It's okay, and heaven knows we have a hell of a job finding good images of politicians, but this doesn't seem to hit the nail on the head. --Pete (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone has edited a lot the original... Not sure why. Anyway - there are two more from the same event - feel free to use them; they are under CC-BY. You can find them on flick - here and here Veni Markovski &#124; Вени Марковски (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Progress
Whoever has just downcased many unnecessary caps (Prime Minister among them), well done. An article like this has forests of necessary caps, so going with the style guides and rationing them down makes reading a lot easier. Tony  (talk)  08:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

35th
I don't care what the National Archives says he is the 35th Prime Minister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.156.100 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Even if a PM serves two separate terms they are still considered only one PM. Have a look at the numbering on the left at List of Prime Ministers of Australia if you need help understanding. All lists from any form of authoritative source will concur. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The first photoshopped-on-wiki Aus PM?
It appears that the has been doctored. It may just be through balance and colour adjustment, but photo doctoring is still photo doctoring. It's not as if the original photo is inferior, I would still easily support it to remain, it has all the hallmarks of being his everlasting hard-to-beat photo. The evidence is in the three File history photo revisions. Doctored, undoctored. I'm of the view we shouldn't go down the path of doctoring photos, especially political ones, no matter how major or minor we consider it to be. In addition, while I'm no photographer, surely part of what makes a good photo and photographer is getting the original shot right? Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter in the slightest. -- Callinus (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "photoshopped" is too strong. It seems only that the brightness has been enhanced. There was no facial sculpting or anything like that. WWGB (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be any issue at all with adjusting exposure, colour balance and so on—these same adjustments take place all the time in traditional photographic processing/printing and I think it would be rare to find any photographer who doesn't use Photoshop, Lightroom or similar tools to adjust and enhance image parameters in the digital era. This Turnbull shot was not taken in a studio either, it was taken at a conference event, which makes it much more difficult to focus and light the subject in the original shot. Compositing or airbrushing is another matter—airbrushing out a microphone or placing someone on a different background—but that hasn't happened here and whether it is appropriate or acceptable depends on the subject matter, the image requirement and whether there is a note or disclaimer that the image has been altered. By the way, there is a whole Graphics Lab workshop which does this sort of work all the time! --Canley (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Countless photographs of politicians used all over Wikimedia projects have some color or light balance adjustment done or minor editing of the background, removal of dust spots, etc. As a photographer, I can tell you this is common. As long as there is no deception of the viewer, this is fine. Jonathunder (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

2009 biography
I found a reference to a 2009 biography of Turnbull, it might be useful to help develop this article. It would be considered a reliable source as the author is an experienced political commentator. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)



Jewish
Turnbull is Jewish yet somehow this is not noted in the article. His Jewish name is Menachem Mendel Turnbull. Please add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:541E:8A0A:310C:981D:C72F:76A (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The best I can find is a couple of articles where Turnbull says that his mother told him he has "ancestors of Jewish origin." I think this 2008 article sums up his view best. As for the name you've provided, I assume you've taken it from this 2013 article. But there is nothing in that article that even hints that it is his name. To me, it looks like something the author of the article made up. There is certainly not enough to justify addiing anything about it to the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Website not mentioning "Liberal" - #Prime Minister (2015-present)
This has recently been added, removed and added again - though not by me:
 * In October 2015 it was noted that front page of Malcolm Turnbull's website contains no mention of the Liberal Party or of the Coalition, thereby showing he is, "above party politics".

Let's have talk. The website is in black and Liberal blue and in the portrait Turnbull is wearing a (light) blue tie. The first tab, "Malcolm & Wentworth", still in black and Liberal blue, begins: "Malcolm Turnbull is a Liberal member of the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister of Australia." This certainly doesn't "show" that he considers himself above politics, nor for my money does it even suggest that. To me, this is just Mr Murdoch's Daily Telegraph (Sydney) spitting a dummy about the overthrow of its beloved Abbott. I propose that this sentence be deleted. Wikiain (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with deletion. It is his personal website, not a party or PM website. He can publish it any way he likes. Typical tabloid trivia. WWGB (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the personal websites of about 20 Liberal MPs—Joe Hockey's was the only one which had a reference to the Liberal Party (a small logo in the navigation footer area). Julie Bishop, Scott Morrison, Kevin Andrews... none of them had any Liberal Party branding or mention on the front pages of their websites. I haven't looked at all of them, although I will do this later, but I would be pretty sure a majority of Liberal MPs don't mention the party on the front page of their websites. Agree that it is probably just a petty (and not well-researched) snipe from the Tele. Completely agree with omitting this nonsense. --Canley (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work, Canley, and I see you've taken the sentence out. Wikiain (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have checked the websites of all the Coalition MPs in the House of Reps. The National Party MPs all use the party's branding and links, so that skews the result to a majority for party mentions. If you look at the Liberals only (+ LNP and CLP) it's about about 50:50. So I was wrong, it wasn't a huge majority, but it's certainly not unusual or suspicious for an MP not to mention their party on their website—I suspect because their personal website is usually to emphasise their devotion to their local electorate over their party. --Canley (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was the one who initially removed it, because it was in the section that describes his prime ministership but has no relevance to that topic. I am glad others agree that it does not belong. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove Scott Morrison's name.. This serious error casts doubt on the methodology and results of the above 'research'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.48.7 (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oooh! Granted when you click through from the front page interstitial (technically this is the front page of Morrison's website though) to the "Cook Electorate website" there is a small Liberal logo. Of course it wasn't a rigorous scientific study—I'm sure I missed quite a few logos, links or mentions as I was scanning them quickly to get a feel for how many refer to the party—but to call this a "serious error" is ridiculous. If you'd like to look through all those websites to show me how wrong I was, feel free! --Canley (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Malcolm Turnbull. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070407190933/http://www.ausflag.com.au:80/debate/nma/aus040820.html to http://www.ausflag.com.au/debate/nma/aus040820.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071207003742/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200702/s1856270.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1856270.htm

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Titles and styles
Whilst it may be important in the case of people born in to royalty to note what their title was from the date of of their birth, is it necessary in the case of Turnbull? Surely anyone can assume he was a plain old "Mister" until he entered parliament and obtained the MP title. I raise this because someone added an extra line about him being a "Master" until the age of 21, which was removed shortly after. I think the "Mister" line is also unnecessary.

Out of curiosity, I looked at some other pages and noticed that Abbott also has him as "Mr" from birth, but the Rudd and Gillard articles don't even have a titles and styles section. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To put it mildly: we do not need these sections. The situation with royalty and the peerage is obviously completely different, but for everyone else? No. Frickeg (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * About the only bit of interest here is when he got to be "The Honourable", but this should be dealt with in prose, rather than a royalty-style "titles and styles" section. I support its removal.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC).
 * I agree. Wikiain (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed it. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

#Personal wealth
Should there be discussion of Labor's attack on Turnbull's personal wealth, as soon as he became PM, accusing him morally as to profitable holdings through a location in the Cayman Islands that had been condemned by President Obama? Though it would have to be mentioned that Labor denied accusing Turnbull of illegality and that Turnbull insisted that he was paying Australian tax in full. Wikiain (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo
Just a random note...thats a pretty shocking photo of him. Surely someone could find a better one that doesn't have his face all scrunched up, much like kevin rudd's?
 * Yes, he's a helluva lot more cheerful now. Wikiain (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent replacement, User:114.76.58.46. Wikiain (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good new, 2015 photo today, User:Stemoc. Wikiain (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not a lot of personality in that, but it's one we can use, good quality, recent. We should encourage all our politicians to take official trips to places where government photos are PD. --Pete (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Panama Papers
It is not yet mentioned in this page that he was named ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.94.173 (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers#Australia "On May 12, 2016, the names of incumbent Prime Minister of Australia Malcolm Turnbull, and former Premier of New South Wales Neville Wran, were both found in the Panama Papers, due to the pair's former directorship of the Mossack Fonseca-incorporated company Star Technology Systems Limited. Turnbull and Wran resigned from these positions in 1995, and the Prime Minister has denied any impropriety, stating "had [Star Technology] made any profits — which it did not regrettably — it certainly would have paid tax in Australia."[455]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.246.185 (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an attempt to smear Turnbull with zero evidence of impropriety. Just raise the suspicion that maybe, might have been, perhaps… Let's leave out any mention of the Panama Papers unless there is something concrete arising. WP:BLP and all that. --Pete (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

To try to find perspective I looked at the first head of state on the list: Mauricio Macri. Again there is nothing concrete and no confirmed impropriety, however Mauricio's page DOES openly disuss the panama papers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauricio_Macri#Panama_Papers_revelations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.246.185 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER is applicable here. The fact is that there is zero evidence of impropriety, and raising suggestions that there is, especially during an election campaign, is not on. I'm no great fan of MT, but I'm even less of a fan about turning Wikipedia into a shitload of maybe. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be about facts, not "maybe". And we have facts. He is the only remaining head of government named in the papers: "List of people named in the Panama Papers" "Heads of government[edit] Former Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson announced a temporary leave from office on April 5, 2016 Iceland Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, Prime Minister of Iceland (on leave since April 7, 2016)[1][6] Australia Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister of Australia[7]" If the name link is followed to that person then it needs to discuss how and why it is just nothing. The page on Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson certainly does discuss the papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.246.185 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way. If you put in a mention here, I will remove it, citing BLP. You're going to have to get some views in support, and a consensus to include. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * let ME put it this way. If you remove it -- assuming the statement is true, neutrally stated and well-supported by reliable sources -- you would be wrong and in violation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. This is npt some wild-eyed blog, and the fact that you mention an election indicates to me that your concern is not for either Wikipedia policy or the truth of the matter. Apparently he says he did nothing wrong. In his eyes most likely he didn't. But exactly why does he need an offshore shell company, hmmm? There *are* legitimate uses for them but they also present a very easy opportunity for self-dealing if you are a government official. Wikipedia policy also does not require that that we mindlessly take his word that he did nothing wrong. Politicians are born thinking they did nothing wrong. Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson thought he d←id nothing wrong, but he had such a conflict of interest that he potentially could have lost millions if he did what his position as prime minister required. The guy who stole billions of dollars worth of oil from a country where people live on less than a dollar a day ALSO thinks he did nothing wrong, because there is no law against bribery or corruption in that country. These are legitimate topics of public discourse. Look at WP:WELLKNOWN. If the story is in the Telegraph and Reuters and the Guardian already, we are not required to wait for a preponderance of the evidence to show guilt before mentioning that the allegation has been made. We DO have to use neutral terminology and emphasize that the allegation ia disputed and not yet litigated. Also WP:OTHER is just an excuse. Why would such an allegation not be notable? *Especially* if he really is the innocent you seem to think. I am going to go answer 123.3.246.185's quite different concern nowElinruby (talk)
 * small edits for typos and clarity Elinruby (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you have the skills to clean up the pages of the heads of state. Six heads of state are mentioned in the panama papers.

These 4 have the papers discussed, with no proof of impropriety on any that I could see:

Argentina Mauricio Macri, President of Argentina[2] Saudi Arabia Salman of Saudi Arabia, King of Saudi Arabia[5] United Arab Emirates Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates and Emir of Abu Dhabi[1] Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine[1]

These 2 have no mention of the papers:

Ecuador Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador [3] Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, President of Belarus[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.246.185 (talk) 09:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it is not usually the heads of state who get their hands dirty; you should not follow other editors down that path imho. Based on my reading it's the guys in charge of the oil-field leases and the sovereign wealth fund you have to watch out for. Secondly, ya, the Panama Papers article has big problems but not the ones you mention here especially. People keep wanting to edit in stuff they found on partisan media, or plain old hoaxes. Someone keeps adding Donald Trump, which is inaccurate. Other people keep wanting to put in paragraphs about how the Prime Minister of Pakistan is not involved, which is undisputed. It is his children who have the holding companies. Then there are the Cook Islands. Come give us a hand :)

Let me run through the names you mention though, as examples. The section on Petro Poroshenko, unless someone has deleted this text as irrelevant, eyeroll, carefully spells out that selling a business is a legitimate use of a shell company. But he bought it the day the Russian Army invaded his country, which is a bad look, the country is *still* in an uproar, and regime change is still in the cards. Similarly the president of Brazil has never been linked to this or any of the other scandals in her country, but the legislature, 60% of which was under some sort of investigation or impeachment for corruption, voted to impeach her anyway. Someone removed this statement from the section as a BLP violation because it possible impeachment is derogatory I guess even if all the sources support not only the impeachment (which public broadcasting is doing 3-5 stories a day about in the US) but also her innocence, yes I did mention that she was apparently innocent and cited the Guardian or something equally high-quality to this effect. I think Wikipedia should consider a class on BLP, seriously.

Belarus has not hit my radar, what's going on there? Ecuador -- I was about to dispute this but I just realized I wrote about that in one of the articles I had to translate to English for the project. He's been harrassing the participating journalists for one thing, and there is a mysterious and incomplete mention of the Virgin Islands investigating a company belonging to Correa and maybe dropping it? Section almost certainly needs an update, a language barrier is an issue here. Ditto the president of Argentina. There were more allegations and a prosecutor was investigating last I looked. Long history of corruptionn and violence in Argentina, and Brazil too. I am absolutely positive that I do not understand what is going on in Argentina and Brazil. As for the king and the emir, for a certain value of not doing anything wrong it might be possible that they have not. They may not distinguish well between their personal and national treasuries is all, and that distiction may even not exist at all in those countries, although I have not yet had a chance to try to verify that. But while we are deciding whether that is cute and understandable let's also ask ourselves whether the economy is SO excellent in their countries that there was no better use at all for $160 million than a six-story yacht. Likewise the dudes with nine flats in London and five in Miami aren't just collecting abodes like butterflies. They are removing money from their ecomomies and parking it in real estate in stable safe countries, which is great for them because it's happening so much they are all going to make a killing when they sell. It's less great for the country that didn't get the infrastructure improvements or AIDs programs or whatever. And it's even less great still for the poor slobs in London and Miami who would have liked to buy a home too.

Hope that helps, come on over and code Belarus or something, seriously, its a big complicated set of stories with very few people working on it. Either way I hope this long answer explains some things and wasn't TOO annoying. Elinruby (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * small fixes and clarifications added about 5m after first posting; also finished a sentence I had left to dangle. Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lengthy insinuations, but that's all they are. There's no problem with sourcing; nobody doubts he's been named in the Panama Papers. But has he done anything improper or illegal? Has he been charged with any wrongdoing? No. Including a mention of the Panama Papers in this biographical article would naturally feed the supposition that he has. Otherwise why mention it? If the purpose of such a mention is to cast doubt upon the subject's character, then it has no place here. We deal in facts, not imaginings. --Pete (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And it is a fact that he was named. My suggestion is that you say so then quote him saying whatever he has had to say about the matter. And possibly leave it at that. I have not looked into the Turnbull situation so it's not clear to me what *is* appropriate there. My point, in these examples, is that what is *not* appropriate is censoring another editor's truthful and well-sourced inclusion because the man says he did nothing wrong. I am not insinuating anything about Turnbull personally; it would be hard to express the depths of my indifference to him. I merely point out that *everyone* who has been named says that they did nothing wrong. Elinruby (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of MT saying he did nothing wrong. He would say that, wouldn't he? It's a matter of nobody else saying he's done anything wrong. Just folk like yourself, who would like our readers to think that maybe he might have. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I first came to this page following links from the Panama Papers, I was expecting to find details of his naming here. Instead of honest open discussion about his reason for having a Panama Company, I found a strange silence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.141.157 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Star Technology Systems was a British Virgin Islands company where the registered agent that officially ran the company in the British Virgin Islands was the local office of the Panama company Mossack Fonseca. This is old news because in Star Mining's 1994 and 1995 accounts, Star Technology appeared with an asterisk and note: "Controlled entity not required to be audited under British Virgin lsland requirements."

Is this an image copyvio?
image that is used in this article concerns me... a) quality is poor, b) low in pixels (originally 604×453), c) no metadata, d) source claimed as 'own work'/no source links and e) uploaded by a user who has made no other contributions. It shares all the attributes of a copyvio image. Should it be sent for deletion? What do others think? Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The poor quality, especially the exposure, indicates that this is not professional work. However the filename suggests that the image has been taken from a newspaper.  My guess (informed by DuckDuckGo)  is that this image may indeed be the author's own work, but has been copied from its publication by a local newspaper, probably one of the Central Coast Newspapers group.  The author - a member the public or a freelancer working for the publisher - would retain the copyright, at least so long as the image has not been altered.  So there seems no reason to deny good faith here.  Nonetheless, I doubt that this image is of appropriate quality for WP:  if that meets with consensus, it should be removed anyway.  Wikiain (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Advisory Statement
Elections in Australia are still in progress. The Prime Minister is currently not yet known. Election on 2 July. Written 7:55pm58.7.248.168 (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC) -- Regardless of how the election eventually turns out, Turnbull is currently the Prime Minister. -- 76.15.128.37 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Key policies in Turnbull's sidebar template
Per my revert, adding women's safety package only, and then adding immigration policy, is cherry picking. It may not seem like it, but there's plenty of numerous other key policies. WP:WEIGHT and a ton of other WP vios. Discuss and obtain consensus before re-adding key policies. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Turnbull's Prime Ministerial policies and record
Since the 2nd spill motion and resulting General election, a surprising lack of information has been added about Turnbull's run as PM. I have added the recent controversy and policies about asylum seeker policy. More needs to be added. I will do so in the coming weeks, but if people could help in my endeavor it would be really appreciated. Especially if someone could help with the curation of noteworthy policies and events. Puuugu (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Much more needs to be said about his energy policy and recent support of coal in particular, since climate action was the issue upon which he lost his leadership in 2009 and he is now using as a political wedge to draw a line between the Coalition and the Labor party.

Malcolm said hes halving our gas bills
Can we start a list of stupid statements and obvious lies, failure to do what he promised? as hes even worse than Abbott was!--TobyWongly (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article is not a place to collect all the "stupid statements and obvious lies" of politicians or otherwise criticize politicians. Articles must have a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

removal of statement
I have removed the following
 * Turnbull repeatedly claimed prior to the election that a vote for a Labor, Green or Independent candidate was a vote for "the Labor/Green/Independent alliance", and also refused to countenance a hung parliament. 

reasons being that The Australian source is behind a paywall so it cant be verified, the Huffington post story doesnt attributes the statement to Turnbull, his deputy Joyce, Scott Morrison, and Corman it doesnt support the claim of repeatable prior to the election this was during the election. The third source also doesnt support the the information being discuss. Its will need to be reworded to reflect the actual available sources, to comply with WP:BLP in an article that is contentious sourcing hidden behind paywalls is inappropriate if the statements are sufficiently important then there will be many other public sources available Gnangarra 12:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Why the astronomically huge lead?
I've noted the lead is huge. Are we not confined to a max. of 4 paragraphs? Any one got objections to me getting to work on this?Brownlife (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Which photo from these two?

 * As there is not much active discussion, I have changed the article photo to Feb 2016, on the basis that it is a higher resolution and good quality photo, and much more representative of the subject's likeness than the previous photo. The previous photo was a bit strange, it was only used because there were limited options available at the time. Let me know if any thoughts. Liguer (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I support adding the September 2016 photo, the current one makes him look like a meth headThaiWanIII (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Now where the F is this "consensus" that you people keep talking about??? Last i checked, consensus is not the views of ONE PERSON ONLY...and even that person changed his mind when a new option was provided. ..-- Stemoc 03:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stemic here, the photo currently used on this article is low resolution and currently gives him quite a large head in comparison to other biographical articles on Wikipedia. Another photo should be chosen. Puuugu (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that the status quo image (7) is adequate; the February and September images do not show Turnbull smiling, at least 7 does. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 02:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Which photo? Sep 2017
While 7 has been the photo through a combination of consensus and status quo until now, 8 has been added - see right. Image preference will be used.

I'm backing 7 (seven). I might have been willing to back 8 (eight) if it didn't look so fundamentally photoshopped/produced... it seems far more suited to a GQ magazine cover story photo. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Flags in the background make 7 look tacky and obviously photoshopped. Why would you not use the official portrait? It is clearly the best shot. 8. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No need for red herrings... the one that is obviously photoshopped/produced is 8, not 7. US DoD (US Department of Defense) full Turnbull image for evidence - with DoD photos, what you see is what you get. The 'official' photo, however, is a heavily photoshopped/produced PR photo. And we are not required or even recommended to use 'official' photos, probably for such a reason - at what point do obviously photoshopped/produced photos become 'fake'? We don't have any similar 'fake' PM photos, I would hope we don't set an awful precedent by starting now. Timeshift (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 7 is an awful photo (awkward facial expression, bad lighting, cluttered background), but I prefer it to 8 as 8 is a PR shot. I note also that the source for 8 has "Copyright © Commonwealth of Australia 2015. All right reserved" at the bottom of the page, so is it really PD? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Timeshift that 8 is just too overproduced and photoshopped; to me it is not a faithful depiction of what he actually looks like, so is not a suitable photo compared to 7. That said, 7 is fairly poor, as I have previously indicated in the discussion above I think we should change to one of the several other alternatives available to us. Liguer (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Timeshift9, Andreas11213, Nick-D, Liguer - I uploaded some more new alternatives from crops of Commons images, you might wish to have a look. My vote is for Image 9 - neutral background, full face, basically looks like how he normally appears in public. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My vote is for 9. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Seven continues to keep my vote... 9-11 each has their own issues. Nine is the worst... the red background throws off Turnbull's white balance and the eyes/smile comes across as slightly crazy looking. Timeshift (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is all subjective. Also, half the background in the current picture you favour is red so I don't see how you could possible raise this as an issue. His smile is natural and not even remotely "crazy looking". Andreas11213 (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ivar. My vote is for 11. (10 is also acceptable. Not so keen on 9.) I've also added a new 12th option above. Liguer (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

At just 200x300 pixel resolution, twelve is not even for consideration. Timeshift (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure where this "consensus" Timeshift continues to talk about comes from. Most users have agreed the current photo is awful and should be changed, and so far 2 users have voted for 9. Andreas11213 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * read WP:EDITCONSENSUS; and if most users think that the current image is "awful", then they would have identified a replacement? reading this discussion, they have not reached consensus. I voted 7, Timeshift also voted for 7; hence, 7 has two votes too. Gain consensus for a different image, which will override the edit-consensus for the current image. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 13:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you read above, image 9 also has two votes in favour. What does that mean? Andreas11213 (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I had already acknowledged the point you made re image 9, hence why I mentioned image 7 (status-quo) also has two supporters... negating your point. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * they all look fairly poor, best of a bad bunch is 10 which at least has the Australian flag in the background though its noisy Gnangarra 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

My vote is for 9 as it is fairly neutral and good colour balance and is fairly natural. Puuugu (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 8 is the only suitable and professional image of all of them. The GQ remarkes are unfounded. One only needs to look at Kevin Rudd or Barack Obama's to draw similar comparisons regarding its suitability. If a compromise was needed, 9 but none of the others. 125.7.86.65 (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is settled then, the majority choice was anything but 7. If this was a FTTP vote, none would have won enough, whilst if it was preferential either 8 or 9 would be best. Thank you all for your contributions to the discussion. Puuugu (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Malcolm Turnbull. 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/20160720071728/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePartyRepresentationLeading-20499.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HousePartyRepresentationLeading-20499.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160811193555/http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s4316999.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s4316999.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905085133/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-152.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-152.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216134540/http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/24/The_politics_of_envy_and_the_actions_of_greed to http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/24/The_politics_of_envy_and_the_actions_of_greed
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230235623/http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20116606/clive-palmer-calls-for-company-tax-changes-in-maiden-speech-to/ to http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/20116606/clive-palmer-calls-for-company-tax-changes-in-maiden-speech-to/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

There should probably be a link to the wikipedia page of "Sukhoi Log Mine". They mention Star Technologies as being involved but the endeavour collapsed with 127 million in the red. It is Irkutsk Oblast in Russia near Lake Baikal. 2001:8003:A928:800:848C:E952:FBC3:53E9 (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister?
Should we really bother noting this? So many people have been PM lately.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

5 March 2020 yes we need to for future genorations

In the future, everyone will be the Australian PM for 15 minutes. It won't be notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

New Book
Please edit and add details of new book, I cannot.

A Bigger Picture ISBN: 9781743795637

Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, Malcolm, I've added it in for you.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)