Talk:Gough Whitlam/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

B-class article

Perhaps Longhair and his fellow solons could tell us mere editors what they find about this article that makes it second-rate in their view. I am willing to put in more time on it (in honour of the Great Man's 90th birthday) if Longahair can advise of its deficiencies. Adam 08:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good question. This article is excellent. Perhaps Longhair is nitpicky about the fact that not many specific statements are sourced; while the reference section is comprehensive it's not clear what parts of the article come from where. --Robert Merkel 06:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If this article had previously met Good article standards (I note it's former FA status), I'd have surely assessed it as being of A-Class. I guess it's my way of saying Why hasn't this article been taken back to GA or FA already? It's a brilliant article Adam, and I trust your expertise on the subject in saying so. Let's bring another quality Australian article out of the shadows. Some more inline references here and there (they're a fussy mob over at FA and I strong suggest making use of WP:CITE) and I'm sure this would reach FA status without a hitch. -- Longhair 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

References section started. Add some more at your leisure. --Robert Merkel 06:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Even at his 90th birthday, it appears EGW does NOT wear glasses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.78.162 (talk • contribs)

OK I will dust off my references and see what can be done. We are still waiting a serious academic or official biography - I assume there is one in the pipe awaiting the GM's demise, but this event seems some way off yet. And indeed, I have never seen Gough in glasses, either in person or in a photo. Adam 08:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope everyone realises that by lavishing more time and attention on the Great Gough, we are guilty of systemic bias, and we will now to redo all the PM articles to get them up to the same standard. They were passable two years when I wrote most of them, but they need upgrading now - especially Menzies and Fraser. Adam 08:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There's been a greater push for referencing of late since the introduction of Category:Living people and the controversies that proceeded its' creation. I've spotted a few other Australian politician articles close to meeting the Good Article criteria, most with similar referencing issues only. It won't take long to get them all up to todays par. What was considered good around here yesterday seems old hat now. -- Longhair 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about referencing, I'm talking about depth of coverage. Fraser was PM for twice as long as Whitlam but his article is seriously inferior, and he has had a solid biography (Ayres) we could canibalise. The difference is systemic bias - everyone hates Fraser (even Liberals these days) so no-one bothers with his article. Adam 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way does anyone know what happened to Cathy Whitlam? The three sons are easily googleable but she has presumably married and disappeared from view. Adam 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PPS I hate the way this footnoting device we are now using disrupts the line spacings. It is very ugly and makes me reluctant to use it. Adam 08:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's rather ugly. However, given that we're being forced to reference things in a general-readership encyclopedia, footnoting is about the least ugly way of doing things, and the beauty of using the referencing code that if somebody fixes the code to make the references look prettier, we won't have to do any changes to the article itself; it'll just happen.

As far as the formatting goes, however, I wonder whether something that looks like what happens when inline URLs are used, like this: [1], might be better than superscripted footnotes. What do you think? --Robert Merkel 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't disrupt the line-spacing, but they often have this funny little gap that follows them, which I don't like either. I've always prefered Harvard footnoting myself, but it seems to have no following here. Adam 10:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What I'm proposing, however, is that Wikipedia's referencing system be modified to display referencing like the example I've given, but without the funny little gap and using the dark blue to indicate an internal link. That would require asking the powers that be to change the footnoting code. But the point is that if we use the built-in referencing system any future technical changes to improve the appearance will happen automatically. And inputting references is f(*&Jg tedious, so I dunno about you but I'd certainly prefer to only have to do it once. --Robert Merkel 10:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand that point (you have to explain technical matters s l o w l y to me). I will persevere. Adam 10:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here considering that I might read this article for Spoken Wikipedia; it's a very interesting article and I commend those who have worked so hard on it. However, as a new reader I found myself noticing many assertions that didn't appear to be substantiated. I'm sure they are well known facts to people more familiar with the subject, and perhaps that is sufficient in itself, but my sense is that Wikipedia likes to see such statements be supported. I added a couple of citation needed tags where I thought they were especially needed. Natebailey 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following unsourced statements in preparation for GA review:

• Although Whitlam knew this was partly a ploy by Hawke to get him out of the country, he hugely enjoyed the Paris posting and made a great impression on other UNESCO delegates. He has published several volumes of memoirs.
• The Labor historian Bob Ellis has described him as "the self-appointed deity of the Labor Party".
• Whitlam has also been offered both a Companion of Honour (CH) and a position as a Privy Councillor, but in keeping with his opposition to Imperial Honours, but he declined the offers.

haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This article was a former Featured Article. Seems a bit of a backward step to aim for GA... Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but the FA criteria seems to have tightened up a bit since then, especially WRT WP:BLP. I thought I'd aim low and avoid disappointment! haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed assessment

This is one possible interpretation of the Whitlam era's economic policies: however, it's not NPOV-compliant and unsourced.

The flow on effects of Whitlam reforms became evident in the following years. The tarriff cuts and abolition of the tarriff board allowed imports to be sold in the Australian market and effectively compete with locally-made goods. Whitlam implemented this measure in an attempt to break the connection between inflation and rising wages prices (caused by market forces and union pressure). He believe that if businesses were forced maintain their prices by having to compete with imports, they would be unable to pass on the cost of wage-rises on to the consumer. Accordingly, "a level playing field" would be created because businesses would be forced to forgo profits to finance wage increases if they wished to remain competitive in the market place. In addition to bridging the financial gap between the employer and the employee, Whitlam believed that this transition would have the side benefit on controlling inflation for the same reasons: businesses cannot easily increase the prices of their goods and remain competitive if the market place contains imports at approximately the same price.

Unfortunately, narrowing profits started become narrow losses, largely within the manufacturing and manual labor industries. This was compounded by ongoing high interest rates, some further tarriff cuts, inflation and increasing taxes required to fund an expanding welfare expense. Throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, scores of manufactures closed down, either due to bankruptcy or relocation to neighbouring countries where labor was cheaper, from which, they then exported their goods into Australia. The economic recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s reduced their numbers even further. Ironically, the tarriff reform policy that the Whitlam government designed with the intention of benefitting the working class was one of the largest contributing factors to the collapse of work-class industries, which accordingly resulted in mass unemployment across the manufacturing, trade and manual handling sectors. Textile and footwear manufacturing in particular has all but disappeared from the Australian business landscape.

Despite the economic boom since the millenium onwards, Australia has an enormous and concerning foreign trade deficit, fueled by increased consumer spending in a market where the vast majority of products are manufactured overseas and imported. In the absence of a strong manufacturing sector, Australian governments have been unable to reverse or even stall the growing foreign trade deficit and it continues to remain an issue of growing concern amongst all sectors of governments and economists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Merkel (talk • contribs)

Medibank / Medicare

Just a susggestion about a point which could be considered confusing for some. Medibank was later(1984) reintroduced as Medicare. This not being included could prove confusing for some as there is now a private health insurer called Medibank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.187.29 (talk • contribs)

agree about Medicare

I got in to make this point and find someone raised it a while ago but nothing has been changed. I think that people reading the article could easily think that Australia does not currently have a universal public health insurance scheme and so in addition to this statement in th article:

Institute a universal health insurance system to be known as Medibank (later under the Fraser government, Medibank was abandoned as a universal health insurance system).

maybe something like (A universal health insurance scheme was later re-introduced in 1984 by...) etc. The current scheme is still part of the legacy of the Whitlam Government, despite having had to be reintroduced. Lucy1958 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the detail is necessary. The Medicare Benefits Schedule derives its authority from "The Health Insurance Act 1973 as amended", so clearly Whitlam's legislation has survived in some form. In this diff I have removed the mentions of Fraser government reversal of the scheme, and mentioned its name change in the "Legacy" section. I also removed "universal" from its description in deference to the amendments since Whitlam's time. --Surturz (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ellis: Labour Historian??

Is it correct to call Bob Ellis a labour historian. He has a strong interest in labour history, but he is also, a well known writer of opinion pieces. Perhaps this makes him somewhat too biased to be a Historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.204.141 (talk • contribs)

The dismissal section -Made changes with references

Taken the liberty to make several changes, cited with references. The sub-article is about the dismissal of Whitlam; that being so then the leads-up around replacement senators into the Senate (debates around Section 15 of the Constitution) are scene setters and warm-up to the main event. The main event, the actual dismissal was precipitated by the issue of a government failing to get supply (in accordance with Section 53) and the actions taken by Kerr (Section 64 of the Constitution)to avert that money crisis.

The role of any parliamentary government and its only legimiate reason for its existance and continuance is to raise tax(supply) monies for the running and payment of government services/business. This matter has been almost by-passed in the article, thus missing the essence of the dismissal and so I made several changes - hopefully in a neutral opionion - to reflect the matter of money bills. Whilst there is still angst around what occurred on 11 November 1975, the 'constitutional crisis' was over the looming issue of Supply and this sub-article, if it is to evolve into an accurate piece of writing ought focus on the question of money bills, to conduct and provide the services of government.Tonyob 12:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Date of Barwick's advice

The date of Barwick's advice to Kerr is mentioned, twice, as 10 December 1975. This can't be right, as the whole furore was about Kerr daring to approach Barwick for advice before he decided to sack Whitlam. It must have been before 11 November. JackofOz 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

10 November 1975, the Monday morning. See Kelly, "November 1975", p223. Incidentally, the "furore" is misplaced. Barwick's advice was not in the nature of the advice Kerr would receive from a minister, but more in the line of a legal opinion. --Pete 03:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But surely it's inappropriate for the Chief Justice to be giving advisory opinions in such circumstances, an action quite clearly ultra vires? The GG had been explicitly advised by the PM not to seek any advice from Barwick. Slac speak up! 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The first point is not sound. Barwick did not claim to be giving an "advisory opinion", something neither the High Court nor the Chief Justice has the power to do. He was giving Kerr his personal opinion, which he had a perfect right to do. And it was not a "legal opinion" anyway, it was Barwick's opinion about Kerr's constitutional powers - essentially it was political advice. The second point, however, is sound. Whitlam had advised (ie, instructed) Kerr not to seek advice from Barwick (whom he quite rightly did not trust), and Kerr was wrong to then do so without advising Whitlam. Adam 03:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the salient point; not that Barwick's advice was good or otherwise in itself, or even whether he was speaking as a private citizen or as a learned judge, but that Kerr had no right to discuss the matter with Barwick at all because he was in so doing acting contrary to the advice of his Prime Minister. This aspect was very much a furore at the time as I recall, apart from the dismissal itself. I've amended the dates, thanks all. JackofOz 03:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

photo

People people people, can we please change the picture that appears at the beginning of this article. I think a photograph depicting the man at the height of his leadership is probably more appropriate than a recent photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.93.97 (talk • contribs)

If you have such a photo that is copyright free or that you hold the copyright for, please feel free to upload it. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 03:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. It is allowed as per hesperians comments about politician photos, and im told it is still ok like i've changed it to, as there is no fair free use alternative for him 'at that age'. Timeshift 03:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, I was just about to post here saying that since he is still alive, shouldn't we have a current photo of him? Oh well, if ppl think a photo of him while he was PM is better, so be it. --Surturz (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

...I think you'd be the only wikipedian to advocate that a modern-day image is better as the main photo than a photo of them during their time as PM... Timeshift (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a picture of him in his prime, PERIOD. It is all 1950,s then 2004 etc. What about some that represent him in the era of PM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.79.167 (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, if you have a free one, reveal it to us!! Timeshift (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

... so fix it.

This would be the reply to the post I was going to make on this article - that it is long, repeats itself in parts, has prose that is at times disjointed and listish. I think we should make this article a target for improvement in the near future, with an emphasis at first on consolidating and clearing the cobwebs, and then on putting in any missing info, sources etc needed to complete the article, before finally trying to earn this article's prior FA status back. Orderinchaos 16:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

ACOTF? It'd be nice to have a collaboration article people actually collaborate on.--cj | talk 01:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a start. This article was one where Adam Carr and I were able to collaborate effectively. I note that over the intervening time it's become harder to find any criticism of Whitlam, whose downfall seems to have been a plot by his enemies, rather than the natural result of a massive loss of public confidence in two years.

I've corrected a few details and removed a paragraph of speculation about Albert Field. --Pete 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The piece could use more references - the references given are in a variety of styles. The dismissal has a long, almost minute by minute, description which duplicates (and probably contradicts) what is contained in the main article on that event. We could usefully reduce this to a paragraph or two.

Interesting to see that the loans affair barely rates a mention. IMHO, that was the scandal that ended any chance Whitlam had of survival, and set the Opposition to work at getting rid of him before the next election was due. --Pete 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to place on the record that the Loans Affair is wikilinked at Australian federal election, 1975. Timeshift 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The question of balance is raised. Important negative events such as TLA get barely a mention, but the dismissal sprawls over several screens, heavily whitewashed. Whitlam really stuffed up that one. On a positive note, I'd like to see some more discussion about what Whitlam meant to Australian society. Some of the things he did were truly revolutionary, and he was a living embodiment of WP:IAR long before Jimbo thought of the concept. --Pete 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I found this article engaging to read, but unfortunately there are just not enough citations to support what is being said. Please see WP:When to cite, and the Mary Wollstonecraft (FA) article as an example of a well-referenced article, and add more citations.

I'm putting this article on hold as the article is close to meeting the GA criteria, however the issue noted above should be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope that this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing... -- Johnfos (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, without even reading the article, I noticed that the third paragraph of "Prime Minister 1972-75" is not a work of prose, but a list smashed together and separated by semicolons — this will need to be fixed as well. Cheers, CP 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of it is defensible and based on the books listed in further reading, but to get to FA it will need sources for each para (perhaps less for GA) and that the books will have to be looked at and page references inserted.--Grahame (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it's bad form to make suggestions and not do something about them. If i can, I'll come back to the page, but for what it is worth I have three suggestions:

• provide more references for the government's acheivements, both in the 1972-75 section and the 'Legacy' section.
• try and find a little more information on his early life / family background
• most pressing issue: the organisation, prioritisation, writing quality and sequencing of material from "Legacy", through "East Timor" to "Out of office" can get much better.

Having said all that, I think this looks very good and surely cannot be a long way from FA quality, not just GA. Cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I reiterate what I stated above and totally agree with Grahame. More references are needed to support what is being said. The article needs sources for most paragraphs and needs page numbers for book sources where possible. The article is still not worthy of GA status at this time. Please consider re-submitting the article after improvements are made. -- Johnfos (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

1969 election 2pp

He actually won a bare majority of the two-party preferred vote, but the Democratic Labor Party's longstanding practice of preferencing against Labor left him four seats short of bringing the Coalition down. - what does one have to do with the other? If one votes DLP then Liberal then Labor, that goes to the Liberal 2pp. If one votes DLP then Labor then Liberal, that goes to the Labor 2pp. Timeshift (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Claim to be the longest-lived former PM

It was reported that at his 92nd birthday celebration Gough "... cheerfully claimed the title of the longest-living former prime minister - after overtaking Billy Hughes, John Gorton and Winston Churchill".

This isn't quite right, because Frank Forde lived for 92 years and 194 days. Gough will overtake him on 22 January 2009. Some people don't count Forde because he was a very short-term PM, but he wasn't just an acting PM so he should definitely be taken into account. I'm sure Gough knows this, and I'm surprised at this claim (I'm assuming the journo accurately recorded his words).

But leaving Forde aside, Gough has certainly lived longer than Churchill, Hughes and Gorton (see below). So he's clearly comparing himself to other Commonwealth PMs, not just Australian PMs. I wonder about the basis of his claim. Is there some published analysis of the lifespans of all Commonwealth PMs so that we can assess this claim? If it's true that come January 2009 he'll be the longest-lived Commonwealth Prime Minister, I guess this deserves a mention. In the meantime, perhaps the honour should go to Frank Forde - which would be quite a pair: shortest-served and (for now) longest-lived Australian PM (and, possibly, longest-lived Commonwealth PM).

• 50 Rudd (living)
• 59.134 Holt
• 59.204 Lyons
• 60.178 Curtin
• 63.065 Deakin
• 64 Keating (living)
• 65.264 Chifley
• 66.064 Fisher
• 69 Howard (living)
• 70.354 Barton
• 73.199 Reid
• 74.223 Watson
• 76.132 Scullin
• 78.008 Fadden
• 78 Hawke (living)
• 78 Fraser (living)
• 80.037 McMahon
• 80.237 McEwen
• 81.134 Page
• 83.146 Menzies
• 84.132 Bruce
• 86.235 Cook
• 90.034 Hughes
• 90.055 (UK) Churchill
• 90.253 Gorton
• 92 Whitlam (living)
• 92.194 Forde

-- JackofOz (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As an acting Prime Minister, did Forde get to do things like be sworn in and form a ministry? Perhaps there is some technicality there? Timeshift (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That's just the point. He didn't just act as PM while the ALP chose a leader to succeed Curtin. He was Curtin's deputy, and he was sworn in as the fully official Prime Minister. The Forde Ministry is just as recognized as any of Menzies', Hawke's or Howard's ministries. True, he didn't last enough time to do anything worth remembering, so he's often overlooked, or even erroneously characterised as an "acting PM" or "caretaker PM". In political terms, I suppose one could say he was merely "acting", or a "caretaker" (because he was never seen as Curtin's natural successor, and Chifley was the man of the hour) - but in constitutional terms he was definitely not acting for those 8 days. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Forde Ministry - thanks. I'm not sure then. Timeshift (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Commonwealth comparisons the longest lived UK Prime Minister was James Callaghan who died one day short of his 93rd birthday. Harold Macmillan lived to 92 years and 320 days - see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity. There don't appear to be lists on other PMs across the Commonwealth, though I guess Éamon de Valera would also count as he held office when Ireland was in the Commonwealth and he lived to 92 years and 319 days. Whitlam isn't yet in the top three for this. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that Hastings Banda, Prime Minister of Malawi, may have been 101 when he died. But no-one knows for sure. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Spoken Article

"The crisis of 1975 was precipitated by the Senate's refusal to pass the Whitlam government's money (Supply) bill. In October 1975, the Opposition moved to delay consideration of the budget in the Senate. This delay would have resulted in essential public services ceasing to function due to lack of money; that is to say the opposition essentially stopped societys vital function to get rid of Whitlam."

I vote for this descrtiption of events. It's obvious that there was a concerted effort to remove Whitlam. Blaming Whitlams demise on himself is a form of newspeak that borders on the absurd. Quoting conservative historians and writers notwithstanding. Be real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.44.195 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

accuracy

"The crisis of 1975 was precipitated by the Senate's refusal to pass the Whitlam government's money (Supply) bill. In October 1975, the Opposition moved to delay consideration of the budget in the Senate. This delay would have resulted in essential public services ceasing to function due to lack of money; that is to say the opposition essentially stopped societys vital function to get rid of Whitlam."

I vote for this descrtiption of events. It's obvious that there was a concerted effort to remove Whitlam. Blaming Whitlams demise on himself is a form of newspeak that borders on the absurd. Quoting conservative historians and writers notwithstanding. Let's not turn dishonest in our description of events for the sake of winning arguments or pushing political views.

What "vital functions of society" stopped in 1975? The answer is none. Money in a few votes had run out, for services such as Defence contractors. Nothing major or vital. Nor would Supply have run out completely. The stalemate would have reached a crisis and been resolved, one way or another, long before there was any significant detrimental impact on Australian society. It should also be remembered that the ALP had voted against Supply as a matter of routine when it was in Opposition, including under Whitlam's leadership.The ALP under Whitlam did not merely delay a vote on Supply; they voted against it. Let us not pander to extreme views. --Pete (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The coup against Whitlams government..

Reading through the limited information on here regarding Whitlam's campaign as prime minister I have found it lacking in truth as to why Whitlam became unpopular. mOre needs to be researched and written regarding the C.I.A's involvement and meddling of Australian political affairs during the Whitlam era. Further mention is required to reveal the 'joint operations' of Pine Gap,and also the 'scandals' and 'controversies' need to be put into more truthful contexts as this description of Whitlam's campaign gives a false impression of a man who was doing what he could to prevent the American take over that you see nowadays.

(TjNomadi (talk) 09:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Try reading the main article of the constitutional crisis section. Timeshift (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is the result of input from all sides and views. Presenting Whitlam as an unblemished hero brought down by powerful shadowy forces is not going to wash. Look no further for the seeds of his destruction than Whitlam himself. There are very few who describe him as anything but strong and opinionated. "Crash through or crash" is a phrase often associated with him. He crashed once too often, that's all. His handling of his ministry, his squandering of the immense national desire for change, his personal arrogance - all contributed to his sliding in the polls to the point where he could be brought down. That's why he became unpopular. His government was a shambles and he presided over an economic decline exacerbated by heavy government spending. It would be remiss of Wikipedia to gloss over the truth. Mainstream political historians such as Paul Kelly present a well-researched picture of a great but flawed character, and they do not give any credence to the CIA or any other secret plot. ---Pete (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading Whitlam's description of this in one of his books. It seemed as if he wanted to agree with this, but was unwilling to go that far. He mentioned hints by the US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, but again, did not seem to want to reach a conclusion himself, but was perfectly happy if the reader chose to.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we get it back to FA?

Hi, as part of my continuing attempts to improve articles that really should be at FA, I'm going to take a shot at this one to return it to FA after years (not quite as long as Whitlam spent there) in the wilderness.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1972 election: NOT latest date legally possible

Despite what Jenny Hocking might say, the 1972 election was not held on "the latest date legally possible". The 27th Parliament was elected on 25 October 1969 and first met on 25 November 1969. It could have carried on till as late as 24 November 1972 and then would have expired through “effluxion of time”. In that case, there was no way the election could possibly have been held on 2 December, only 8 days later. It could have been held as late as late January or even early February 1973. See Chronology of Australian federal parliaments. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It isn't a big point, I will remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC minor points

These mainly prose issues aren't major enough to warrant lots of space on the FAC page itself:-

• Lead: To avoid the slightly staccato effect of short sentences in mid third paragraph, would you consider this combination: "After Labor won the 1974 election with a reduced majority the Opposition, which controlled the Senate, was emboldened by government scandals and a flagging economy."
• Early and family life
  • It might be useful to explain that in 1918 Sydney was the seat of the national Government, hence Whitlam senior's need to move there.
    • In 1918, the seat of the national government was Melbourne. It's never been in Sydney. That impression may have been created during the Howard years (1996-2007), when he ensconced himself in Kirribilli House in Sydney, a building that was never intended as the permanent residence of the Prime Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
      • What he said. The Federal public service was formed from parts of the Victorian public service, and that is how Fred came to be in the Federal public service. The High Court sat in both Melbourne and Sydney in that era, and now and then elsewhere, which is why Fred Whitlam came to be in Sydney.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "—because St. Paul requires formal wear at dinner, students could supply their own costumes and were desired for the parts." The last part of the sentence does not read well; may I suggest a simplification: "—chosen because St. Paul requires formal wear at dinner and students could therefore supply their own costumes."
    • I will adopt it, with it changed to "required (and requires)" to make it clear it was tradition then, it is tradition now. Nice survival, that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Whitlam enlisted in the Sydney University Regiment, part of the Army Reserve, soon after the outbreak of World War II." Suggest better as "Soon after the outbreak of World War II in 1939, Whitlam enlisted in the Sydney University Regiment, part of the Army Reserve."
  • "he met and married Margaret Dovey" should be "Whitlam met..." (new paragraph)
  • "The couple have been married for more than two-thirds of a century..." Is this necessary, given that you have told us the year of the wedding? Perhaps: "In 1942, while awaiting entry into the service, Whitlam met and married Margaret Dovey, daughter of barrister and future New South Wales Supreme Court judge Bill Dovey.[15] Three sons and a daughter were born to them. On the 60th anniversary of their marriage,..." etc
    • It is an easy way of making it clear to the uninformed reader that the marriage continues.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Candidate and backbencher
  • "and was under the leadership of Bert Evatt" - best date this: "and since 1951 had been under the leadership..." etc
  • Last sentence: "Whitlam came to believe that the Constitution could be used to advance a worthwhile Labor programme." As stated this runs slightly counter to the preceding sentence. Should it be: "Whitlam came to believe that changes to the Constitution could be used..." etc?
    • Nope. The existing constitution, principally the power of the Federal government under Article 96 to make grants to the states--and though it is not stated in the text, to put strings on that money.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Deputy leader
  • "By the late 1950s Whitlam was seen as a future leadership contender, once the existing Labor leaders exited the scene." I think "future" is redundant here, as it is implied in "once the existing..." etc
  • "Never good, Whitlam's relationship with Calwell..." My personal preference would be "Whitlam's relationship with Calwell, never good,..."
• Leader of the opposition: "The election saw the ALP win 12 seats..." I think you mean "gain".
• Duumvirate
  • "A caucus meeting could not be held until after the final results came in, which took place on 15 December." Clarify what took place, the caucus or the results coming in.
  • "a woman named Elizabeth Evatt..." Better as "a woman, Elizabeth Evatt, ..." since I assume you are drawing attention to the gender rather than the name.
  • "It barred racially-discriminatory sport teams from Australia..." To what does "it" refer?
• Enacting an agenda: "It attempted to set up a new city..." Again, "it" needs defining.
• Early troubles
  • "the Coalition senators, led by Senate Liberal leader Reg Withers, sought to block government legislation only when it would advance the opposition's agenda." Another undefined "it"
• Second term
  • "for in excess of a year in 1973–74" This sounds wrong because 1973=74 sounds like a single year. Prehaps "in 1973 and 1974".
  • An untidy sentence: "The budget was unsuccessful in dealing with the inflation and unemployment, and Whitlam brought in large tax cuts in November, and announced additional spending to help the private sector." Two ands suggest either a split or repunctuation required. Also, "inflation" rather than "the inflation"
  • For Loan Council, I think there should be a word of explanation rather than a mere link. I also think the words "until afterwards" are awkward and imprecise. Till after what? I would lose these words.
    • I've rephrased and explained a bit more. The Loan Council was going to have to sign off; Whitlam was trying to present them with a fait accompli especially since he didn't trust them (I think at that time the Opposition controlled four state governments).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "Whitlam sent cables to both governments" Which two governments?

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Except where noted, I've implemented these. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And here are a few final points

• Constitutional crisis
  • "With Senator Field on leave (his appointment having been challenged)..." As this is a new section there should be a reference to the nature of Field's appointment, e.g. "With Field on leave (his Senate appointment having been challenged)..."
• Return to opposition
  • "Whitlam's son Tony was turned back in an attempt to join his father in the House of Representatives." Turned back? Is this a way of saying he was defeated in the election?
• Ambassador etc
  • "Whitlam also alleged that Shackleton was "culpable" if he had not passed on Whitlam's warning." Slight ambiguity in the phrasing. Maybe "if he had not passed Whitlam's warning on to ..."?

See FAC page for other points (not many) Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed all points here, please see FAC page for comments on those.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness

One thing I feel the article fails to capture is how much Whitlam was admired and seen as a hero by folks on the left - this sentence:

According to Hocking, for a period of at least a decade, the Whitlam era was seen almost entirely in negative terms

is somewhat unbalancing, and needs some positive addenda. I will try to find some. Admittedly I am biased as I got a free medical degree thanks for his role in removing university fees (and I come from a big family of left-wingers :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the mention close by that Whitlam's admired by many in the ALP?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah saw that. Need to think about it - in a nutshell, those on the left think he was Oz's greatest PM and a visionary, while those on the right see him as irresponsible. Similar splitting is seen with Pig-iron Bob - while Hawke, Howard, Fraser and Rudd are (I think) seen as more middle of the road and less polarising. But politics ain't my thing and these are my impressions. Some refs needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

this was a pretty significant event which crystallised the Whitlam government :) - a whole book written on the subject Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was too much detail, likely suitable to mention in an article on the Whitlam Government, but not one on the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

He was the one who personally authorised the purchase and also on the condition the price be publicised. It also really crystallises in one action how he and his term in government were viewed by either side of the political spectrum. It gets quoted in the press pretty regularly. I think it is the sort of anecdote which gives the article some colour and a flavour of what whitlam and his gov't were like. Ya had ta be there I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The purchase was definitely a Whitlam act rather than one of his parliament. And it was BIG, in many ways. Worth a mention, for sure. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fine, it parallels well with the art gallery appointment later. I am away from home for a few days, if I can't find anything online, I'll add it from my books.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a couple of sentences already anyway - see if your books have anything to embellish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote looks good. I will check Reid and the first Kelly book as most likely, when I am home in a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"In a nursing home..." Who cares?

That above "fact" has just been added. Most of us will end up in a nursing home. Chances are almost every person mentioned in Wikipedia who died in the last 50 years ended up in a nursing home. It's not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that is his present status, I think it is notable enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The statement about Whitlam in a nursing home appears to be factual, and it is supported by an in-line citation, therefore it should remain. Much of the information about Whitlam is true of a significant proportion of the adult population in the western world - education, military service, marriage and family. This does not mean these things should be eliminated from the article on the grounds of non-notability.

Wikipedia has criteria for notability for the subject of articles. Whitlam himself must be sufficiently notable to qualify as the subject of an article. Wikipedia does not have criteria for some sort of notability of individual facts that are recorded in its articles. Dolphin (t) 23:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I try to take a long term view when editing articles. For those those who think it's notable now, for how long will that notability last? Gough will die one day, That will be notable. But will anyone then be interested in the fact that he spent time in a nursing home when he was 93? HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HiLo - this is inconsequential and need not be included. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Gough will die one day. When that happens he will cease to be living in a nursing home. Then it will be time to delete mention of the nursing home and replace it with extensive information about his death, funeral etc. I also agree that this information need not be included, but information is not inserted in Wikipedia on the basis of need. Dolphin (t) 05:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes it is really. It's an encyclopedia, and this is a Featured Article. Adding trivia to it degrades its quality. We don't even know when he moved to the home, so it isn't very worthwhile. Incidentally the text isn't really accurate on one point either. It says "his wife ... is no longer able to care for him", whereas the article says that his wife "is said to have been unable to manage her husband's care". If that "is said" was in a wikipedia article, it would immediately have been slapped with a "by whom" tag. The most text I would concede adding to the WP article would be something like this: "In 2010, with his mobility impaired, Whitlam was moved to a nursing home." That is absolutely all we need.hamiltonstone (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The information is not trivial, it is highly relevant. One of the key points in any biographical article about a living person should be "Where is she/he now and what is she/he doing?". A former PM living to 93 and needing full time care is highly notable information. However, I don't think it needs any more than the line suggested by Hamiltonstone - but it absolutely should be included. An extract from another featured article hopefully provides some guide to what is appropriate:

In 1978, four years after the death of his wife, Ponsford moved in with his son at Woodend in rural Victoria, and was an active lawn bowler. An infection after an operation in 1988 saw Ponsford admitted to a nursing home in nearby Kyneton. He died there on 6 April 1991; at the time he was Australia's oldest living Test cricketer.

Trust this helps, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Mattinbgn. Aaroncrick ^TALK 06:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Yes, a former PM living to 93 is notable, but anyone needing full time care at that age isn't. I explained why earlier. It's completely normal for 93 year olds to be in nursing homes. That's NOT notable. So why mention it? In fact, what would be notable would be for him to NOT be in a nursing home at that age. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is completely normal for people to be born, go to school, get married, have children and eventually die too - nonetheless these are all of interest to readers of biographical articles. The considerable news coverage given to the story goes a long way to demonstrating notability. What I do not understand is the objection to a brief neutral statement stating that he went into care? It is neither degrading or insulting to a living subject, nor is it a breach of privacy, it is merely a statement of fact that contains no moral overtones. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My objection is simply regarding the significance of the "event". Nothing to do with "degrading or insulting...nor...breach of privacy". Also nothing to do with being factual, or well sourced, more arguments above against things I didn't say. If a consensus (apart from me) says it is significant, I have no other objection. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just didn't understand your objection. To be honest I don't think as an event it is all that notable but it is something I would expect to see in a bio. Others may feel differently. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

For another FA where the nursing home (well, retirement home) information was included, please see Jerry Voorhis. I think this info has to stay in. There are mentions of Whitlam's recent activities, for example, exchanging books with Fraser. It is not trivial. He may (I hope not) die there, in which the information will have been relevant and should not have to be scrounged for. If he moves back to the marital home, then there it should be deleted. But the reader is entitled to know Whitlam's current situation if it can be reliably sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed images up

Discussion here. Timeshift (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, it is still in copyright in the US where Wikipedia's servers are.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The licence is Australian. It's nice to get FAs but at what cost? I'd be embarrassed to have the Gough Whitlam FA with the bust as his infobox picture. The license is fine outside of an FA, it's used everywhere, Removing the image and placing the bust in severely degrades the article. Perhaps delay FA nom for the time being? The official FA status article need be no different from the current article in quality. Timeshift (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is merely a decorative photo, either way. I would say the article was greatly improved and made more useful for the reader in the FA process. Either way, the photo would be a problem, it would merely be more ignored if it were not a FA. Worth the improvement, I would say.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh i'm with you, I just realised that the article is already an FA! Well if it's been re-accredited with FA, and the image really cannot be used, then I feel that FA has let us down. It's a very poor looking article with the bust feature. Timeshift (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping to get an image of Whitlam from the Nixon library from his 1973 White House visit. Unfortunately, it is not yet catalogued, there is no public access until July because of the files moving there from the National Archives in Maryland, and it is very uncertain when they will get to that date. That would be a good solution, there is probably an image we could crop so only Whitlam shows. As for the FAC, it was remove the image or see the article fail.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If an article is of FA standard but it is not officially an FA, is it still not FA material? Yes, the beurocracy wins, the article is given an official FA, but with a photo of a bust that totally ruins the arcticle. Certainly not a quality of article I would want to put on FA display as an Australian. I'll revert shall I? Ugh. Timeshift (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of restoring the photograph and delaying FA until the photograph, or another suitable one, becomes legitimate. The article contains a photograph of Malcolm Fraser from the era of greatest interest so it is all the more important that the article has an image of Gough from this era. Gough has been out of office for half a lifetime so what is another month or three? Dolphin (t) 03:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Under the Hague Convention, the image is copyright until the death of the photographer plus seventy years. That means 2025 at a minimum. And it already is a FA. There is not one rule for FAs and one rule for all other articles, it is that the article has been reviewed carefully for compliance. There is discussion of this image at the FAC (go up on this page to the article history and click on "Featured Article Candidate". You will find I was most regretful about having to take it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I should add that the Fraser image was taken with him as PM in the US by a US fed. gov. photographer, which carries no copyright anywhere. I am hopeful that there are similar images of Whitlam, but I need to be in California to go to the Nixon library and go through the sheets of film from that day and look for ones with WHiltam on them and then order reproductions made. I hope to be in Calif sometime before November, but am unsure when that will be yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aw gee, the image that is there now shows Whitlam at 90, on a day were there is some indication he left his false teeth at home. On the whole, I'd rather have the statue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean. Well, the page is already FA, why don't we just... put the 1955 image back there... :) Timeshift (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I probably would not revert if you did. I am still hoping to get out to the Nixon Library and search that date for pictures if possible, but I don't know when that would be. Hopefully there is an image of Whitlam in his prime there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Many months ago, I was asked to copyedit this article just before it went to FAC. I got lost in a labyrinth of schoolwork and other mayhem, and I wish to apologize most severely for my delinquency in finishing the task. However, I suppose "better late than never" applies once again.

This article is very well-written, and does a fine job of balancing the needs of comprehensiveness with those of concision. The FA star is well deserved.

I should point out that, as someone living in the US, I may not be familiar with some spellings or phrases specific to British/Australian English. Please check for any inconsistencies and excuse any confusion that results from this.

All comments are merely offered for consideration; no tick marks or approval from me (for changing or leaving items along) are necessary.

• Whitlam was born in suburban Melbourne, but grew to maturity in the new national capital of Canberra. I'm not familiar with Australian English conventions, so it's entirely possible that my inclination to simply write "grew up" is a result of my being a US person.

• I recall learning once upon a time that sandwiching text between images (as between the 1942 and 1944 images in the "Early and family life" section) is not preferred. But I'll be danged if I can find that guideline now.

• Whitlam senior's involvement in human rights issues was a powerful influence on his son. Could we get an example of this involvement?

• early primary schooling at a girls' school was not unusual for small boys at the time Was this true about other countries too? Or just Australia? Could we specify (since it's pretty unusual to me as a US person)?

• Gough Whitlam remains the only Prime Minister to have spent his formative years in Canberra. This feels like an odd statement to include. Perhaps I don't realize the significance? He was probably the only one with the first name of Gough, right? Why is this tidbit more relevant than others?

• conditions remained primitive in what was dubbed "the bush capital" and "the land of the blowflies" Can we get an example? Lack of electricity? Indoor plumbing? Etc.

• In the rough and tumble debate in the House of Representatives... This paragraph could use a topic sentence. Something like: "Whitlam quickly gained a reputation as a man of blunt opinion."

• The Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, adroitly used the defection of a Soviet official to his advantage... We could use a phrase explaining how. Did the defection prove the efficacy of one party or another? Let's assume the reader is (like me) totally unfamiliar with the Petrov Affair.

• Margaret Whitlam campaigned for the building of a public swimming pool in Cabramatta, and later became president of the swimming club. This feels like something more fitting on her page, and not so pertinent to this one. (Especially since I presume the page length is something we need to watch carefully here?)

• Many Labor goals, such as nationalisation, ran contrary to the Constitution. This sounds like a politically dicey statement. Maybe "... were considered contrary to the Constitution"? It also doesn't compute with the following sentence: Whitlam came to believe that the Constitution could be used to advance a worthwhile Labor programme.

• Menzies manipulated the Opposition on issues that bitterly divided it, such as direct aid to the states for private schools, and the proposed base. The phrase "manipulated the Opposition" is unclear. Also: which base? Am I missing an antecedent here? Please clarify both of these.

• ...received an unexpected boost after the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy... Was this a result of the assassination? Or just concurrent? Either way the language should be made more precise.

• Calwell dismissed proposals that the ALP leader and deputy leader should be entitled to membership on the conference... Shouldn't this be "in the conference"? Or is it an Australian turn of phrase?

• one of the conference's Victoria seats -- I assume this is an additional auxiliary position? Could we get a phrase of clarification for those of us unfamiliar with such a term?

• The paragraph beginning: "Menzies retired in January 1966..." is a bit choppy and the second half of it is stranded in the chronology. Any way to break it up and incorporate it into other paragraphs?

• ...though Calwell received two-thirds of the vote, the ALP leader announced that if the ALP lost the upcoming election, he would not stand again for the leadership. The pronouns and references to "the ALP leader" are getting confusing. Clarify by adding names?

• Could we add some pictures of the people mentioned in "Deputy leader" or "Labor Party leader" to break up the heavy text in those sections?

• For the remainder of the year, Gorton appeared to have the better of Whitlam in the House of Representatives. This is kind of vague. Can we get a more specific phrase? Did Gorton have more power? Was Whitlam subordinate to Gorton? Can we get an example?

• In March 1971, Gorton lost a vote of no confidence in the Liberal caucus. The Liberals elected William McMahon as their new leader, and he became Prime Minister. Could we combine these? "In March 1971, Gorton lost a vote of no confidence in the Liberal caucus, and William McMahon was elected Prime Minister." (I don't know if that's factually accurate, being woefully ignorant of Australian political procedure.)

• a confused ad-lib speech This feels pejorative.. Perhaps "hasty" or "poorly-received"?

• Whitlam came across far better on television than did McMahon, further strengthening his hand. This really needs a citation.

• The Labor strategy for the run-up to the election was to sit back and allow the government to make mistakes... This feels like very casual wording -- can we get something more precise? "... was to remain inactive.." or some such?

• Could we get a phrase of explanation of where the term "duumvirate" came from?

• It did not seek to block all government legislation, the Coalition senators, led by Senate Liberal leader Reg Withers, sought to block government legislation only when it would advance the opposition's agenda. Unclear.

• As a general principle, I find (made up example) "Smith decided to search" clunky writing; "Smith searched" is preferred.

• The final paragraphs of "Ambassador and elder statesman" feels like a disjointed hodgepodge bordering on WP:PROSELINE. Is there any way to weave these details together more smoothly?

• More books have been written about Whitlam, including his own writings, than about any other Australian prime minister. Does this mean there are more books about him and his writings? Or more books than any other Australian PM if (and only if) you include his own writings? Please clarify.

• Ross McMullin ... notes that Whitlam remains greatly admired by many Labor supporters because of his efforts to reform Australian government, and because of inspiring leadership. These last two words feel odd, almost WP:OR. Can we get an exact quote instead? Or just say "... because of his leadership"?

Again: Congratulations on your fine work! Scartol • Tok 21:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Many thanks for the detailed work. As we are no longer under time constraints, I will respond as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Faceless Men"

Can someone point me in the direction of the famous 1963 Faceless Men photo showing Calwell and Whitlam? We could probably get a fair use rationale for this one and use it in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove Her Majesty

Brought this here to avoid an edit battle.

There's been a few skirmishes today across the pages of the more recent Australian PMs - Fraser, Keating, -> Rudd. End result was to remove references to the monarch. My edit here (now reverted) was to make this article consistent with the rest.

Happy to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get into an edit battle, as an admin I limit myself to a strict 2RR and rarely get that high. Has there been a discussion of why we dump Betty Saxe-Coburg? Happy to be consistent (although as this is the only Australian PM article to be FA, perhaps others should take their lead here). I do not have a strong opinion on the matter, personally. After all, Liz Battenberg played a passive though important role in Whitlam's fall.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you refer to her as "Betty Saxe-Coburg" in one breath, and "Liz Battenberg" in another. What's next - "Liza Windsor"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Borrowed the names from the "Thief Who Couldn't Sleep" series by Lawrence Block ... you won't take me to the Tower for this, I hope? After all, I'm the one defending the lady ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Just curious. I couldn't quite see what point, if any, you were trying to make. NFA. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

None really, as I don't have views on Australian politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Wehwalt was making a joke. I like it. :-) HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Duumvirate: proportional representation

The Senate, at that time consisting of ten members from each of the six states, was elected by proportional representation.

This reads as if the Senate is no longer elected that way, but it is. It has not changed since 1948. Was there some purpose in mentioning proportional representation there? (Jack of Oz at work =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The point was to make it clear that there was no territorial representation. I will strike the word "was" and change "consisting" to "consisted", striking the initial comma. Many thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, what we have now is:

• "Whitlam took office with a majority in the House of Representatives, but without control of the Senate (elected in 1967 and 1970). The Senate at that time consisted of ten members from each of the six states, elected by proportional representation".

I still have a problem with this. The point of the text is to say that, although Whitlam won government by winning the Reps, he did not have control of the Senate. The makeup of the Senate, or how it was elected, really have nothing to do with the issue, and the 2nd sentence seems superfluous here.

However, in a spirit of consensus, I could live with having "The Senate at that time consisted of ten members from each of the six states" there - because it changed during Whitlam's tenure (territory senators came on board) and changed again in 1984 (increased from 10 to 12 from each state).

But I definitely do not agree with "elected by proportional representation" - which, as I said above, has not changed since 1948; the very mention of it here might lead one to think it has changed since Whitlam's time - but it hasn't. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cronulla - Town or suburb?

Sorry, but I'm going to dispute this. Was Cronulla ever considered a town? It is a suburb now, and I wouldn't of thought it was ever different, but HiLo48 said that it was the 40s so said town was right. Trivial thing I admit, so I didn't want to get into an edit war about it, and it's probably too small an issue to even warrant discussion, but for the sake of accuracy: Should the article refer to Cronulla as a town or suburb? Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia - no issue is too small to discuss! Unfortunately all I can to offer this particular discussion is that the Department of Lands calls it a village (!) here. Frickeg (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was a town during the period mentioned then based on other articles I would assume we should refer to it as such (In much the same way Edmund Barton is listed as being born in the "British Empire" and not Australia, or Salman Rushdie is listed as being born in Bombay, British India). Unfortunately, I don't have access to the source referenced, so I don't know what it says, and I can't find anything else that refers to Cronulla as a town. This is the closest, saying that after World War II it became "suburban", but I'm certain that's referring to the residential population, and not it becoming a suburb. It also states the Shire was proclaimed in 1906, so I can only assume it was indeed a suburb at that point, and not a separate town. I won't put my assumptions into the article though. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how it being part of a shire makes it a suburb. Shires are usually rural areas, or previously rural areas more recently partly absorbed by a metropolitan area. I live in one such area myself. Now a suburb, but definitely not in the 1940s.HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for my copy of Hocking but I haven't used it in quite some time since it only goes up to 1972. To the best of my recollection, she said "town". Of course, she may have misused the term. I will let you know if it turns up.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Found it. She refers to Cronulla as a suburb, twice, on page 111. My bad. However, I see the article has been edited to get around the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, that edit was so simple. Should've thought of that. Do find it humourous that the guy who edited said that we should get a life, but has done over 500 edits in under a month though... EDIT: Sorry if that constitutes a personal attack, I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything. Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4