Talk:Malcolm Turnbull

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 Wikipedia: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)

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 [1]. 60.241.168.215 08:36, 24 January 2007 (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?

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)

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)

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)

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."[2]

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.)"[3]

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].""[4] Timeshift (talk) 15:03, 23 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 "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: [5]. Fraser and Whitlam together supporting a yes vote for a republic. --Surturz (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Current unfolding events

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 Wikipedia: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)

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: [6]. 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)