Talk:Turnbull government

Page creation

Cudos on getting the page up so quickly. Just a random question about the time stamping in history, is this Standard Eastern Australian Time? 14 September 2015‎ is pretty early in the unfolding of these events. The page was created and details appeared to be added before events seem to have unfolded (at least in terms of breaking in the media), albeit without all the details. Does Coekon know something we don't? 12:09. --Fincle (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

According to Help:Page history, timestamps are recorded in UTC. So, in Canberra time, the page was created at 10:09 pm - according to Sky News, it was announced at 9:48 pm. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Same sex marriage? Marriage equality? Marriage laws?

Given that the Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia and amending the marriage laws is likely to be an ongoing issue in the Turnbull Government, what should the section that deals with it be called in this article? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with Marriage equality? Please, no. FYI, i'm in a long term relationship, with another man. If I ever wanted to get married, I would want to get married, no more, no less. To me it's just marriage, not "same sex" marriage... the point of the qualifier is? Which is why Marriage equality is now the oft-used term, as it doesn't have the same verbal implications, nor should it. Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The way the subject is covered in the Abbott Government article is with the subject header "marriage laws", and since this article has been created, the section header has been all three (same sex marriage, marriage equality, marriage laws). This indicates to me that the subject is likely to be edit warred over - particularly in the lead up to a plebiscite - so I thought I'd start up a discussion. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It was added at a different earlier time, most likely before the term "marriage equality" became the norm. I've updated the title at Abbott Government. I highly doubt any reasonable person would object to "marriage equality". Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The same sex marriage section now covers events from both terms of government. I'm not sure how to fix this.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Election

We seem to be have an edit war about the election. The section describes it as "marking the first time since 2004 that a government had been reelected with an absolute majority in the House of Representatives". I think this is trying to put a good spin on a slim victory. This observation is not in the source cited. It is a manufactured statistic. There have only been four elections in that time: 2007 — Howard replaced by Rudd, 2010 — Gillard returned with a minority government, 2013 — Rudd replaced by Abbott, 2016 — Turnbull returned with a one-seat majority. The description in question is clearly misleading. In fact, Turnbull has not broken any trend, but is following in the path set by Gillard. Also, in the context of an article entitled "Turnbull Government", it is misleading to use the word "reelected" because the Turnbull Government wasn't elected in the first place.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. That's an absurd piece of spin. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the spin, as there has been no argument supporting it.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

the characterization of a fact as "spin" is absolutely ludicrous. it is notable that the coalition is the first government to be returned with a majority. given that turnbull's government is a Coalition governemnt this is a relevant point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 07:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It is also a fact that Turnbull is the second PM called Malcolm. But is this significant? The statement that you want to insert is a misleading attempt to make the victory look better than it is. Do you have a source that backs up this analysis?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

that is incorrect, we have only had one prime minister who has had the first name 'malcolm'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Learn Malcolm Fraser and Australian politics more generally please. Timeshift (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fraser's first name was John, but he was called Malcolm, which is why I used the word "called". I thought that issue might come up. This is an illustration of how random facts are an distraction.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeshift, actually read the article you linked, fraser's first name was john..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a steep hill to climb to claim Fraser's first name wasn't Malcolm. His birth certificate has a christian name of John like his father, as used to be somewhat of a tradition - he was always referred to unanimously in WP:RS and non RS as Malcolm. Whitlam is unanimously Gough, not Edward as named after his grandfather. Chifley is Ben rather than Joseph Benedict. If you want a grey area, refer to Chris Watson. To say "we have only had one prime minister who has had the first name 'malcolm'" without any further clarification is purposefully wrong and misleading, everyone then and everyone now refers to him as Malcolm Fraser. We and others go by common names (and names used at .gov articles), certainly we don't split hairs like that. Australia has had two Malcolms as PM. WP:COMMONNAME and other WP guidelines etc et al. Like the content pointed out in the first post/paragraph in this '2016 election' section, it is just another form of spin. Anyone who simply says "we have only had one prime minister who has had the first name 'malcolm'" can only come across as WP:POINTy and at the least has no understanding of how wikipedia, and common name usage more generally, works and at the worst is a mischief-maker. Timeshift (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In the spirit of manufactured pointless statistics, has anyone else noticed that the current PM Malcolm Turnbull, at 15 characters/letters, is the lengthiest common name of any Australian Prime Minister? On the flipside, Bob Hawke is the shortest. The shortest won four successive elections starting from opposition while the lengthiest barely won one election by a single seat from incumbency, with a historically disastrous current approval % rating in the 20s and disapproval % rating in the 60s? Based on these statistics, we can deduce that a longer common name length is a drag on approval and is therefore noteable and requires inclusion? *tongue in cheek* :D Timeshift (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

you are a disgrace to prime minister john fraser. he would be appalled by the way you are behaving and the false assertions you are making about his first name. i have tried to make a sensible, factually correct contribution to this page but you ALP stooges seem intent on peddling bias and and have demonstrated a distinct lack of percipience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus against the manufactured statistic ("first time since 2004..."). Please stop inserting it in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Gay neutrality

this page need to be neutral on the question of gay marriage. some bieas person have written marriage equality but For Some other people and the vast majority of Australians would not consider that true or neutral. instead of marriage equality it should and must be renamed to a more neutral worded name such as gay marriage or same sex marriage. Torygreen84 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I don't know what the "vast majority" think, but as so often written on these pages, "equality" is a term recently adopted by advocates, so can be used when describing or quoting their position (as in the Pyne quote in this article), but otherwise the neutral term "sam-sex" should be used used. After all, this topic is so disputed that one side wants a plebiscite, so we can't adopt the disputed phrase when a perfectly neutral alternative is available and used by both sides. Observoz (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You you agree with me and common sense. Torygreen84 (talk) 07:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Marriage equality is not a neutral term.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Gonski 2.0 and Section 18C

I have removed these headings because they have been there for some time without any content. We should try to make the article as presentable as possible, even though it is incomplete.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have also removed the heading "Tax Cuts". Please stop adding headings without content. Either add some content, or note on the talk page what needs to be added.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Turnbull Government

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Turnbull Government's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "theaustralian.com.au":

• From Q&A (Australian talk show): Arrogant ABC's left bias lets down taxpayers, and Q&A is proof; theaustralian.com.au; 30 June 2015
• From Rudd Government (2007–10): "Student support up in air". The Australian. 27 January 2010. Retrieved 24 June 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete?

This article and sections of it have been tagged as incomplete since 2016. While I agree the article needs improvement and expansion, I wonder if it still needs to be tagged like this. If so, do we need to look at a strategy to pull it into shape?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The article has been untagged without a comment, so I have taken the "expand section" tags off too. It looks like the the article will be as lacklustre as the Turnbull Government, but I don't think we should tag it indefinitely, as it is no worse than many other articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)