Talk:Julie Bishop

message: I am surprised that User:Timeshift9 restored the "Liberal MPs allege..." text since he made some excellent arguments against the similar "What's the G20?" issue over at Kevin Rudd. Although the reference is a WP:RS, the article itself is written by an anonymous author about anonymous Liberal MPs. This is hardly verifiable and certainly not good enough for a WP:BLP given the nature of the allegations. --Surturz (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal MPs allege... 

message: Does such a title even exist? And if it does, wouldn't it belong to Nationals leader Warren Truss? Digestible (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deputy Opposition leader Julie Bishop has resigned her portfolio as Treasury spokeswoman. Timeshift (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was more what I was looking for. Fair enough then. Surprising that the Nats retain front-bench positions but not the deputyship in opposition. Digestible (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deputy Opposition Leader 

message: Who ever does this, can you pleas semi-protect this page, as Julie Bishop is a very important government figure, and only auto confirmed members should be able to edit this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Julie Bishop is now one of two women in Cabinet.
137.147.136.145 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  (e • t • c) 07:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014 

message: In 2006-2007, Bishop held the ministerial portfolios of Education, Science and Training. It is not helpful to contract this to "Minister for Education" (and revert a remedial edit). Bishop's responsibilities as Minister for Science are undoubtedly relevant to her unfortunate patronage of Firepower International, but I agree with Yeti Hunter that the cited source is not  explicit on that point. The source is, however, amply specific on other relevant details. I undertake to rephrase the content with more care, and thank Yeti Hunter for the partially appropriate intervention.Bjenks (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I now find that my unverified synthesis, correctly identified by Yeti Hunter, is explicitly verified by Gerard Ryle at p. 185-6 of his book "Firepower":—Johnston later secured an invitation to a third dinner, this time also at the prime minister's official residence in Canberra, The Lodge, thus compounding the paradox of a serving federal science minister taking seriously a person offering a magic pill. The same source (at p. 125) also notes that Bishop was a "close personal friend" of barrister and Firepower director Les Stein, with whom she had served from 1994 until 1998 at the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia. Ryle describes Firepower as "the most spectacular fraud in Australian history" and places much of the blame on federal government aid and patronage. In contrast, the WA Ministry of Fair Trading in 2000 warned motorists about false claims made for a similar fuel product, and successfully prosecuted its vendors.(p. 70)  Bjenks (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on, hang on! The restored and expanded section now contains more editorialising. The "synthesis" I referred to in the original piece, "Bishop had capacity and resources to examine Firepower's credentials, but chose to facilitate Johnston's access to the Howard government at the highest level" has been restored, and the Ryle reference used to verify it does not support your wording, essentially to the effect that Bishop should have known better. The whole thing has a strong whiff of dubious scandalmongering - nowhere is there a suggestion that there was any impropriety on Bishop's behalf. The activities mentioned sound perfectly reasonable for a new business liaising with the government of the day; the fact that their technology turned out to be bullshit, and no donations were forthcoming to the Liberal party, is not significant in the broader context of Bishop's time as a minister in the Howard government. Additionally, the new section is the same length as the entire section dealing with Bishop's time as Howard minister - this is blatant WP:UNDUE. The material you cover would be better placed at Firepower International, where it would add detail to the existing section about the government's involvement. It does not belong in a BLP, except perhaps as a short one or two sentence aside. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Having been supported by a citation, the statement ceased to be a potential "synthesis", ie, to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". No impropriety is ascribed because none has been established--Bishop being one of many (including her prime minister) to have been fooled by the con man. The source simply finds it a "paradox" that a science minister should "[take] seriously a person offering a magic pill"--hardly a "scandalmongering" comment following the facts presented. Are you suggesting that it is OR to infer that a minister has "capacity and resources" (my words)? The paragraph I have inserted is not unduly long in view of the matter's notability. It is not my concern that adjacent material has not achieved any great length. You are welcome to act on your view that the matter also has notability for the Firepower International article. Bjenks (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source effectively says Bishop should have known better - implicitly, not explicitly, and furthermore misuses the word "paradox". Using that source to write that she failed to use the resources available to her goes beyond synthesis into editorialising, if not outright invention. You yourself admit that Bishop's role in the deception was minor - one among many who did not initially see through their fraudulent claims, however the section as currently written seems to ascribe Bishop a central role. This is why I believe it belongs not here, but at Firepower International's page, where the extent of Johnson's deception is more fully explained. Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Though not accepting your arguments, I defer to your reasonable sensitivity which may well be shared by others, and have removed the alleged "synthesis" and a supporting citation. Bjenks (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firepower patronage 

message: I have just removed the following line, which had been tacked onto the end of the "Minister in the Abbott government" section:
:Bishop does not describe herself as a feminist, having described the term as "not particularly useful".http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/29/julie-bishop-rejects-term-feminist-as-not-useful-in-women-in-media-address
:
It doesn't belong in the section about her role as Foreign Minister, so I removed it. Unless there is a section created about "personal views", I don't think it really belongs anywhere in the article. But I am pasting it here in case someone disagrees and wants to restore it somewhere. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume it was put there because she said it during an interview which occurred because she was a minister in the Abbott Govt. That is to say, she held that view during that time. I think it is an interesting fact about Julie Bishop though, so I will add it to the Personal Life section for wont of a better place. Kerry (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop not a feminist? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Julie Bishop. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150925121937/http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/07/30/russia-vetoes-un-vote-on-mh17-tribunal.html to http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2015/07/30/russia-vetoes-un-vote-on-mh17-tribunal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A section or coverage of her widely reported opinion of Trump's behavior toward Brigitte Macron should be a part of the article.--Wikipietime (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking out about Trump's behavior toward Macron's wife during July 2017 French Bastille Day visit. 

message: The current photo is the official photo, as evidenced by the DFAT website, the foreign minister website, and her twitter. It is also more recent than the alternative; in the alternative Bishop is sporting a hairstyle that she hasn't worn for several years. Both photos are of equal quality, I can't think of any reason to switch back to an out of date photo that is no longer officially used. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't find any reason? You fail to point out that the one you favour was a) extremely uncentered not fit for portrait use, and b) consistency - look at image/file usage... the one you are changing from is used all over wikipedia, the one you are changing to is not. I've fixed a but you can fix b yourself and remember this in future. Timeshift (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it's "fit for portrait use" is entirely subjective, and personally I think its fine. I'm not changing the photo to anything, you're the one who wants to change the photo that's been used in this article for several years. I disagree with your rationale for changing the photo, so the burden is on you to build consensus for your preferred option. The snarkiness and the edit-warring are totally unnecessary. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that the older image is inferior to the newer image, why do you think that only applies in 9% of instances - a single instance (Julie Bishop) of the 11 instances (Julie Bishop, List of Australian Leaders of the Opposition, Minister for Foreign Affairs (Australia), Cabinet of Australia, Template:Cabinet of Australia, Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2007, Abbott Government, Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, September 2015, Turnbull Government, List of female foreign ministers, National Security Committee (Australia))? Why even bother? Timeshift (talk) 11:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The newer image was used on 100% of those articles until April 2016, when you overwrote File:Julie Bishop 2014.jpg (originally uploaded by User:Stemoc in September 2014) with the older image. This was a clear violation of Wikimedia Commons policy, and you would be well aware of that given you seem to be a prolific contributor there. It seems like you did that so people who have Julie Bishop, etc., on their Wikipedia watchlist wouldn't be able to scrutinise your image change. Why are you so obsessed with that image that you're willing to pull devious underhanded shit like that and blatantly lie to other editors just to get it into the article? Judging by your recent contributions you seem to be trying to slip in a lot of bizarre / unnecessary image changes with edit summaries that are completely unrelated – as you would be well aware, "fix" is not a valid edit summary when you're changing the infobox image for an article that hundreds or thousands of people view each day. I'll be keeping an eye on you, the last thing Wikipedia needs is more sneaky little so-and-so's as editors. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF... you are making invented accusations. As for your comments re: 'fix', i've just finished performing the largest image resolution and quality mass replacements/upgrades of pre-1950 federal leader images in AusPol wiki history... I make no apologies for concentrating on the content instead of the edit summary. Keep an eye on me, a Master Editor III if you want, it might serve to teach - after all, you haven't been a wikipedia user for even one month yet. Perhaps a tad too early for you to make such sweeping judgements of veterans. Timeshift (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Julie Bishop. 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/20110309204954/http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/bishop/budget07/bud03_07.htm to http://www.dest.gov.au/ministers/bishop/budget07/bud03_07.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925122039/http://www.1015fm.com.au/news/julie-bishop-says-she-wont-challenge-tony-abbott-leadership-nor-she-rounding-backbench-support to http://www.1015fm.com.au/news/julie-bishop-says-she-wont-challenge-tony-abbott-leadership-nor-she-rounding-backbench-support
*Added  tag to http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/perth-confidential/power-and-the-fashion/story-e6frg30u-1111114162157
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) 13:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julie Bishop. 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/20140725092007/http://australianconservative.com/2010/09/abbott-announces-his-shadow-ministry/ to http://australianconservative.com/2010/09/abbott-announces-his-shadow-ministry/
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) 10:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: WP:RSBREAKING: "Breaking news reports often contain serious inaccuracies[...] It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia, than to help spread potentially false rumors". I noticed that this news is changing, some sources say she has been replaced, others say she is to be replaced. So I will revert or make changes in the hopes of editors wait until the issue has settled. If you disagree preferably discuss it here but you have the right to revert or make changes as well.  Thinker78 (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, calm down. Marise Payne was sworn in earlier today, Bishop held her commission as FM until then. WWGB (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishop's term of office as Minister of Foreign Affairs

message: Today's Fairfax papers are reporting that Bishop announced in August she would not be contesting the 2019 election. She may well make such an announcement before May, but I think this is just confused and incompetent journalism at this stage.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange; Fairfax's own articles from August don't say any such thing (eg , ), just that she quit as FM but would stay on as an MP, though there was speculation she would retire before the next election. Nothing definitive yet from Bishop herself; agree to ignore such reports for now.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Retiring? Probably not

message: For future reference, the Advanced Management Program for Senior Managers does indeed confer alumni status of Harvard Business School. Excerpt from Harvard Business School executive education page for the AMP :  and the HBS Alumni Network page :  I trust this settles the matter. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard Business School alumni status 

message: What exactly is the encyclopaedic value here? It's written as if there's some suggestion of impropriety on Bishop's behalf, but I can't quite work out what the accusation is. Butler in the Guardian suggests there was a concern Bishop's activities with Greensill pre-dated her registration as a lobbyist, but later in the same article it says that the department determined that such activity was not subject to the lobbyists code. Suggest this be culled back to a one- or two-liner similar to the bit about Palladium. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greensill 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion