Talk:Julie Bishop

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

Liberal MPs allege...[edit]

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)[reply]

Deputy Opposition Leader[edit]

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)[reply]

Deputy Opposition leader Julie Bishop has resigned her portfolio as Treasury spokeswoman. Timeshift (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Protection[edit]

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)[reply]

Legal career - representation of CSR[edit]

This is primarily in regards to a dispute with User:Yeti Hunter but would welcome other opinions.

Apologies for taking so long to reply. The reason I think this is important to mention is that the asbestos compensation claims were a major part of in particular, Western Australian history, (thousands of people died as a result of asbestos mining and companies attempts to hide the truth about mesothelioma). It is therefore important to mention Bishop's part the legal defence of their actions. It is true that she would have obviously represented other clients in her legal career but if there are any cases as big as this one I am unaware of them. Bishop is a politician representing a West Australian electorate and if she was involved with an important part of the state's history I can't see why it shouldn't be added here. If you have sources which tell of her part in other important cases then please add them but that is no reason not to mention this one. I think it is therefore important that it is at least mentioned.

Look forward to your response Politicswiki (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remain concerned that the notable instances of this turning up in the press are almost always in the context of a political attack on Bishop, (some examples, see the Herald Sun, the Telegraph, News.com.au, and Crikey). The Crikey one is particularly interesting, as it makes clear that the issue erupted in response to the Gillard-AWU affair, where tit-for-tat claims were initially made that Bishop may have, like Gillard, acted professionally for a partner (Nattrass, Lightfoot and Gillon are all mentioned). When it became clear that such allegations were false, the tactic changed to attempting to shame Bishop over her involvement in the CSR case, despite there being no accusation of improper behaviour. The MP who seems to have started the whole thing (see the Telegraph article above) even admits "You can't judge anyone by their clients, I suppose".
The only way I can see this passing WP:NPOV is with a very carefully worded, matter-of-fact statement. Value judgements such as "[CSR] sought to deny compensation" would be right out. I'm not sure about Wiki practice on this kind of issue, but I can see that it is possible that, say, an MP who once acted on a high-profile murder case might have that fact mentioned in their article, but very neutrally worded (eg "acted for the defense in the Ivan Milat case" rather than "defended serial killer Ivan Milat"). Even then, the case would have to be sufficiently high-profile, both in the mainstream media and in the context of the person's career, to pass WP:UNDUE. Perhaps the CSR case would pass the first test (although it doesn't presently have its own article), but I see little evidence it was particularly significant in Bishop's career. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point on matter of fact wording, I used the words "deny compensation" as it had been used in a couple of articles so I'm prepared to change that (and wouldn't have minded if you had done so). I think my wording was quite neutral otherwise, it mentioned it happened but didn't say it was right or wrong. There was info on asbestosis victims who were angry with Bishop but I left that out for the sake of balance. While I understand that the matter was raised as a political counter-attack I don't think that warrants not including it, as the fact that it happened is not at all disputed. I am also concerned that by not including it we may be letting the media dictate what gets included in wikipedia, the Gillard affair got massive coverage and therefore gets its own page, Bishop's conduct gets very little coverage and therefore has not even been mentioned yet. I don't like to compare it to the Gillard AWU affair and I am not saying they are equivilent but at the same time Bishop did have a choice in whether to represent CSR, though it would have been a difficult one.

How about something like "While working at Clayton Utz Bishop was part of the legal team which defended compensation claims against CSR by asbestos mining workers who had contracted mesothelioma as a result of their work for the company" ? I think all those facts are well established. Politicswiki (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2014[edit]

Julie Bishop is now one of two women in Cabinet. 137.147.136.145 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 07:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firepower patronage[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(discussion reopened)

I have removed the section. Having reviewed the sources, nowhere does it say that any meeting was facilitated by Bishop, nor that Johnston sought her cooperation specifically. The sources do say that he approached Bishop as his local member to offer donations to the party, and that the list of attendees at one of the dinners was (in part) suggested by Bishop - not exactly the prominent role that this section implies. Bishop supposedly being a "close personal friend" of a Firepower director is likewise irrelevant. Quoting from WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis in original). That's a high bar that in this case is nowhere near being met for such a contentious claim about a living person. Had I reviewed the sources better at the time, I would have removed it outright. Better late than never. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop not a feminist?[edit]

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".[1]
  1. ^ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Airport screening[edit]

Hello,

I would like to point out that the description of the airport screening incident, which led to the suspension of several airport security staff, due to the interference of the Ministry of transport, following the security screening of MS Bishop on her way to New York, has been deleted several times. This story has been reported by all Australian newspapers, and some foreign newspapers such as the Guardian. Hence, the matter is not trivial, and is a reflection of the Government's interference. Right or not, since Bishop was the subject of the screening, and that she has been accused of intervening in the matter in order to get the security staff sanctionned, it is perfectly legitimate that the story should be found on her wikipedia page. To delete the story amounts to covering up the matter. Furthermore, to engage into an edit war is beneficial to nobody as it would only blow out of proportion a case, considered as trivial by the very ones deleting the story in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.159.65 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Add -

I read the part deleted by MelbourneStar, described as lacking neutrality, and I would like to disagree. It is perfectly legitimate that reports of the incident should be found on her page. Moreover, the part in question was perfectly referenced and quoting an article from The Age. Although I do see why one could claim that the newspaper is leaning more towards the Left and hence unlikely to favor Bishop, it is a perfectly viable source of information. I see that this page is now semi-protected. It amounts to a form of censorship. MelbourneStar, perhaps you may be a bit biased, I am afraid.

The deletion by MelbourneStar was entirely justified, as was my original revert. The material you propose to add is entirely unimportant in the context of Bishop's role in the Turnbull government. It might qualify for WikiNews (although I'm not sure, being uninvolved in that project). Even then, the assertion that Bishop herself has been criticised is false. Criticised by whom? For what? "Storm in a teacup" does not adequately capture the triviality of this incident. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@83.202.16.251: You can play in the mud-bucket of accusing good-faith editors of being biased or censorship, that's okay – but if you or any other editor go out of your/their way to add content to a WP:BLP artcicle that is contentious and factually incorrect - and you know this - I will make sure to bring this to the attention of administrators who take a dim view on clear violations of BLP policy.
You and the instigating IP, have yet to point directly to whom has "criticised" Bishop and where that criticism is alluded to within the source provided. Until you do, if it looks, reads and sounds like a BLP violation – it's because it certainly is. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise can be found. This story may not belong in the specific section about the current government per say, but it does involve 2 of its ministers. Moreover, the source is indeed more than reliable and there is no denial on either part (Bishop and the Minister of transport). Hence the story is both valid and worth writing about. It is true though that Bishop has not been criticized. The right thing to do would be to mention it quickly, as it did lead to the suspension and firing of airport staff following the direct involvement of the ministry of transport at the demand of Bishop. To omit the story is voluntary omission.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.47.190 (talk) 09:43, 5 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
Bishop has neither been criticised, nor is there evidence that the involvement of the Transport Ministry was at her demand, as you allege. In fact, the source explicitly states that "no action was sought or requested". But that doesn't change the fact that this is a fundamentally trivial incident of no importance, lasting or otherwise. If I'm wrong, and in six weeks time Bishop is still being grilled over the gross injustice she served upon three innocent security workers, then we can talk about including a mention of "Departure Gate-gate," but frankly I don't suggest you hold your breath. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources point out to the fact that she was responsible for the inquiry demanded by the Ministry of Transportation, as opposed to this part of her page "Along with Scott Morrison, Bishop has been widely regarded as one of the best performing ministers in the government.[36]", which is not only non factual because difficult to measure, but also biased. Finally, it is unclear as to why the matter is trivial in the sense that direct involvement for personal matters into the functioning of administrative matters is prohibited in any state with a proper separation of administrative and governance matter. I am unclear to as to why again you would judge the story is trivial if newspapers deemed it was not. Perhaps you are more qualified than they are, but given the types of things found on this page, perhaps not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.159.65 (talk • contribs)
Just because other crap exists in this article, is no excuse whatsoever to pile on more. I don't disagree with you, that there may be other issues with this article. But this discussion is focussed solely on the matters before us: the airport screening incident.
Secondly, you have drawn out criticism of Bishop (despite said criticism not cited within the source – a big no-no) If anything from what I understand from the source you provided – it is Bishop who is the 'victim', if there are any:
  • "At least three Melbourne Airport workers were suspended - and a security guard has lost his job - as a result of the botched security screening of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop"
  • "Ms Bishop was singled out to be scanned on her way through Melbourne Airport to New York"
  • "Workers at the screening position were later suspended amid evidence their selection of the Foreign Minister was "not random" and therefore breached airport security protocol"
  • "The female worker who conducted the scan was found to have "not adhered to standard security screening procedures"
  • "Melbourne Airport said in a statement: 'A male ISS worker's employment was terminated as a result of not adhering to standard security screening as required at an Australian international airport'"
Those are excerpts from the source you provided, that you then somehow understood that Bishop was criticised.
If you'd like to criticise others for alleged biases, please focus on your own actions first. Best regards, —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you watch your tone, and show a bit of good faith. If the story was widely reported, it is not in order to defend Bishop but to point out the interference of the ministry of transport at the informal demand of Bishop. End of story. If that cannot be on her wikipedia page, it will show on some other pages. Eventually, the story will come out again, when she uses her position again to further her interests. Meanwhile, then, please delete the part stating she was the most competent minister of the previous Government.
My tone is completely fine, especially to someone who had the audacity to violate BLP to suit their own agenda. If you want to be treated with good faith – how about you show it first, by not labelling editors as biased, as you initially did? That might help you out.
Regarding matters at hand; I don't belive the content you wish to add in, in its entirety, will be added in – because it is written in a non-neutral point of view and makes claims that are not within the source.
The content you wish to be removed, I actually disagree with its removal. Why? because unlike the content you wish to be added - that is not with the source provided... the content you want removed is actually in the source provided. That's my view, maybe others will agree with you, or others will disagree. —MelbourneStar☆talk 11:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking out about Trump's behavior toward Macron's wife during July 2017 French Bastille Day visit.[edit]

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)[reply]

Citations;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/reebok-donald-trump-brigitte-macron-beautiful-in-good-shape-chart-inappropriate-a7843246.html

Photo[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop's term of office as Minister of Foreign Affairs[edit]

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,[1] others say she is to be replaced.[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retiring? Probably not[edit]

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)[reply]

Strange; Fairfax's own articles from August don't say any such thing (eg [3], [4]), 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)[reply]

Harvard Business School alumni status[edit]

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 [5]:

Alumni Status - Upon completing the Advanced Management Program, you will become a lifetime member of the HBS alumni community

and the HBS Alumni Network page [6]:

The following programs grant alumni status... Advanced Management Program

I trust this settles the matter. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greensill[edit]

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julie_Bishop&oldid=1206312061"