Talk:Gough Whitlam: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:09, 20 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gough Whitlam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Gough Whitlam is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 25, 2004, and on November 5, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
March 24, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
January 23, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 20, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
May 9, 2010	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 5, 2010, December 5, 2011, December 5, 2012, December 5, 2013, and December 5, 2017.
Current status: Featured article

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Melbourne / Politics Top‑importance

	Australia portal Gough Whitlam is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a request, submitted by (unknown), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Lead

The second sentence of the lead needs rewriting. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that help? Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 |otd5oldid=813879463
 }}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=no|class=FA|vital=yes|listas=Whitlam, Gough|1=
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=no|1=
-{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=FA|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low|listas=Whitlam, Gough}}
+{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low}}
-{{WikiProject Australia|class=FA
+{{WikiProject Australia|importance=Top
-|importance=Top
-|past-collaboration=15-29 October 2006
 <!-- Wikiproject specific tags -->
 |politics=yes
@@ Line 56: / Line 54: @@
 |Melbourne-importance=top
 }}
-{{WikiProject Politics|class=FA|importance=mid}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}}
 }}
 {{Spoken Wikipedia request|(unknown)|Previously requested}}
 {{Australian English}}
-{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=FA}}
-== CIA and the dismissal ==
+== Lead ==
+The second sentence of the lead needs rewriting. [[User:Ficaia|𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆]] ([[User talk:Ficaia|talk]]) 13:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
+:Does that help? [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
-An editor recently added an undue tag to the section which summarises the allegations about the CIA's involvement in The Dismissal. Generally, that editor should start a talk page discussion to provide their reasons for adding the tag. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 12:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
-:I might tend to agree that the allegations, which are not very substantiated, are covered elsewhere and here is not the place for them. at such length [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 13:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
-:: There is a separate article about the allegations, so it would be reasonable to only include a summary here. We could discuss how much of the issue to include. Presumably the editor who added the undue tag is suggesting that the whole section be removed because they considered the allegations a conspiracy theory. That would be unwarranted given the level of commentary available about the allegations. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 14:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::Their edit summary said, "why are we devoting one-third of this section to boosting a conspiracy theory?" I would suggest that a paragraph of three to four moderately-sized paragraphs would suffice for this article. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::: In that case it does not need much trimming, since it only consists of five paragraphs, each of which consists of between two and four sentences. The key points to cover are: that there are background reasons for the CIA wanting Whitlam removed; that there is some circumstantial evidence for CIA involvement; and that some people do, and others don't, believe the CIA was involved. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 16:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::::I've shortened it while trying to keep to those points. The Anthony CIA involvement seemed to me peripheral. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 17:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
-:::::: Right-ho. Anthony's connection to the CIA is mentioned in the [[Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal]] page. However, there is no mention that the CIA officer Stallings channelled money to Anthony, so I will copy that across. [[User:Burrobert|Burrobert]] ([[User talk:Burrobert|talk]]) 17:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
-== Structure not adhered to - Revision necessary  ==
-Despite several attempts to properly amend this article as to be in alignment with the consistent structure used across the wikipedia pages of office holders in [[Politics of Australia|Australian politics]], including those of [[Prime Minister of Australia|prime ministers,]] [[Premiers and chief ministers of the Australian states and territories|premiers and chief ministers]], the amendments have been continuously reverted despite them effectively contributing to the betterment of this page. The amendments include:
-- “'''Edward Gough Whitlam''' [[Companion of the Order of Australia|AC]] [[Queen's Counsel|QC]] (11 July 1916 – 21 October 2014) was the 21st [[prime minister of Australia]], serving from 1972 to 1975. He held office as the leader of the [[Australian Labor Party]](ALP), of which he was the longest-serving.”
-— To be revised to:
-- “'''Edward Gough Whitlam''' [[Companion of the Order of Australia|AC]] [[Queen's Counsel|QC]] (11 July 1916 – 21 October 2014) was an Australian politician and barrister who served as the 21st [[prime minister of Australia]] from 1972 to 1975. He held office as the leader of the [[Australian Labor Party]](ALP), of which he was the longest-serving.”
-Such amendments would make this page homogeneous with the pre-existing pages of all Australian prime ministers (it is currently the only page of 31 to not use this template whereby the '''nationality''', then primary '''occupation''' or '''occupations''', is stated directly following the name of the individual).
-It would also be worth noting that keeping this page in its current form does not align with the pages of essentially all political figures on the project, including those of [[List of prime ministers of Canada|Canadian prime ministers]] and [[Member of Parliament (Canada)|members of parliament]], [[List of presidents of the United States|American presidents]] and [[United States Congress|congresspeople]], [[List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom|British prime ministers]] and [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|members of parliament]] etc. you can view the few linked here for reference and see that every page adheres to the structure I have proposed to introduce on this page, however you may use wikipedia yourself to find any past or present office holders who are by vast majority afforded the aforementioned style of name-nationality-occupation:
-i.e. Bob Smith (DOB) was a ''Nationality occupation'' and ''occupation'' who served as the etc etc.
-I implore those who continue to tirelessly  revert these amendments to consider what has been clearly outlined and what is standard practice, and good practice, when editing office holders pages on Wikipedia. This is a very basic amendment which puts this page on-par with all others in Australian politics - and most on the Wikipedia project as a whole.
-[[User:Dr.Editorias|Dr.Editorias]] ([[User talk:Dr.Editorias|talk]]) 02:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
-:Many biographical articles have the formulation you employ, but many do not. You are mistaken when you say all US presidents have the formulation, at least ten do not. What is important is that the first sentence mention nationality, and that is certainly implied by mentioning that the individual is prime minister of a country. How it is done is a matter for editor discretion, in the absence of a policy dictating a certain formulation. See [[MOS:REDUNDANCY]]. It would be nice to have the other Australian prime minister articles on a par with this one as this is the only one to be a [[WP:FA|Featured Article]]. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 16:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
-::[[User:Dr.Editorias]] has argued the case well. Multiple reverts of their edits appear to be in breach of Wikipedia guidelines.
-::On precisely this matter Wikipedia says:
-:::{{xt|Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the ''status quo'' (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.}}
-::See [[WP:DONTREVERT]]
-::If these multiple reversions are to be accepted as legitimate, the reverters must successfully explain that the edits by Dr.Editorias ''actually make the article worse''. [[User:Dolphin51|<i style="color: green;">''Dolphin''</i>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<span style="color: blue;">t</span>]])'' 22:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
-:::I am grateful for your perspective. However, repeatedly adding the same material when you have been reverted without discussing or even leaving an edit summary, as was done in attempting to add the material, by Dr.Editorias, is problematical per [[WP:UNRESPONSIVE]] and [[WP:EPTALK]]. [[WP:BRD]] is also widely followed on Wikipedia. The bottom line is, it's the job of the proposer of material to build consensus and repeatedly adding it without edit summary is not a good way of doing it. [[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 06:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)