Talk:John Stone (Australian politician)

Re-organisation / New Information

Re-organised the original article (monotonous slabs of text do no good for anyone) into sections and added new details about what state he represented in the Senate, and his early life. Added a link to a bio page with lots more details to be added when someone has the time. EcoLawStudent 17:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a nice, encyclopaedic way to include the fact that John Stone is a complete, utter moron?

You know

The quote shown, needs to be explained why it created "controversy" (as editorialised in the article) and also why it has such a prominence in a 2bit politician? I notice that editor Prester John correctly removed it (as normal editorialising should be in a BLP) but it has been reverted. Shot info (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word controversy, however the quotation should stay. It's one of the few properly referenced parts of this article. It could be argued that under BLP rules it is the unreferenced sections of the article that should be removed. Cheers, Lester 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE tells us what to do in the event of information given an inappropriate amount of prominance. For starters, why was is "controversy"? Third party source(s)? The supplied reference doesn't support that. WP:NPOV gives us intructions on what to do with material that is give undue weight, regardless of it's sourcing. Incidently any form of OR can be reverted regardless of claims of "referenced" properly or not. Which I will do so. Shot info (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to say its "O.R", it would be handy if you said which part you think is OR before you start deleting.Lester 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You beat me too it, now you just need to add in the third party source showing why this quote should received such prominance - before it gets deleted per WP:NPOV? Shot info (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You want more references? It's the only quote in the article, and one of the few referenced bits, but if you want more references added that can be done. I'd suggest, however, that it would be more worthwhile to add new references to the myriad of other unreferenced sections of the article. The existing quote is prominent only because there are no other quotes in the article. If you are interested in the subject, you are free to add other quotes, as long as you add a reference to them. We are not disputing the fact that the subject said the quote, therefore it conforms to BLP rules.Lester 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read for comprehension. I repeat you just need to add in the third party source showing why this quote should received such prominance. Please click on the link. It will show you why Wikipedia doesn't agree that the subject of this article is "well known" for the quote added. You are failing WP:NPOV here, not WP:BLP. Shot info (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

John Stone is famous for this and similar quotes. He has a reputation for it. Which other quotes would you like to be added? That he said "Pauline Hanson was 85% right"? His comments about what he described as "the Muslim problem"? His comment that border protection should be toughened to prevent refugees entering? There is a long list of John Stone quotes which are accessible by Googling. If anything, the single quote is given less prominence in the article than in the outside media. Stone's immigration views should be given more prominence, as that is what he is most famous for.Lester 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is what he is "most famous for" please add it. Otherwise the quote is an example of undue weight. It really is that simple. Shot info (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Resignation as Secretary to the Treasury

I seem to recall that he resigned without warning on the very morning of the 1984 budget, or possibly the next day. It was widely seen as his way of saying "Although, as an apolitical public servant, I have prepared this budget in accordance with the government's instructions, I cannot personally support some of the major elements of it and my only option is to resign". He never actually said those words as far as I recall, but that's how it was read by commentators. I can't find anything about this online. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here we are. He announced his resignation on Wednesday 15 August 1984. The announcement came just 6 days before the 1984-85 Budget, which was delivered on Tuesday 21 August 1984. The resignation became effective on 14 September 1984. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Joh Nats

This should be better explained.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)