Talk:Gough Whitlam

CIA and the dismissal

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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Australian politics, including those of prime ministers, 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 AC 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 AC 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 Canadian prime ministers and members of parliament, American presidents and congresspeople, British prime ministers and 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.

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 Featured Article. 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:

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. Dolphin (t) 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. Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dolphin51, please refer to WP:BLPUNDEL. That is the applicable policy here. TarnishedPath^talk 05:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath: Thank you for your reply. I have closely studied WP:BLP and WP:BLPUNDEL.

In the first edit by Dr Editorias (see above) he quoted a brief opening sentence as it stands at present; and the same sentence as he wishes it to be. The essential difference is that Dr Editorias proposes describing E.G. Whitlam as “an Australian politician and barrister”. These are the only specifics quoted by anyone on this Talk thread. I don’t doubt that you can quote a large number of specifics related to our article on Whitlam, but neither you nor anyone else has done so. While we have no more specifics available on this thread, we can discuss the one above in which Whitlam is described as an Australian politician and barrister; that is how we seek consensus.

Can we agree that describing Whitlam as an “Australian politician and barrister” does not violate WP:BLP or WP:BLPUNDEL? I’m sure we can all agree on that. Dolphin (t) 12:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dolphin51, per the policy I quoted when added material is reverted in a WP:BLP the onus is on those arguing to keep it to form consensus. At present there's a few people who have reverted Dr Editorias and if he keeps going this could be considered a slow edit war on his part. TarnishedPath^talk 12:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath: Your latest edit appears to be off-topic. This Talk thread is not about edit-warring, is it? This thread was initiated by Dr Editorias and it constitutes a good-faith request for consideration of certain proposals. The principles prevailing on Wikipedia mean that Dr Editorias should receive equally good-faith responses. Any User unable or unwilling to respond to Dr Editorias in good-faith should take a step backwards and observe quietly.

This thread is about a question or two asked by Dr Editorias. Dolphin (t) 12:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dolphin51, he reverted the same text that he preferred three times over a three days. An edit doesn't need to violate 3RR to be considered edit warring. Again I refer to you WP:BLPUNDEL and would advise you to not engage in WP:BADGERING. If Dr Editorias has a preference for a certain edit then the onus is on them to obtain consensus. If they don't think consensus is obtainable here after a bit of discussion they could always start an WP:RFC but I really don't think there's any policy grounds for one. TarnishedPath^talk 13:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

TarnishedPath: Thank you for your prompt reply. I appreciate it.

Wikipedia is often blighted by edit-warring. We have ways of dealing with it - WP:ANI is one way. I’m confident there is nothing written anywhere on Wikipedia that says “wait until the edit warrior has a question and starts a discussion thread on a Talk page, and then go to that discussion thread and confront the offender with your allegations about edit-warring.” However, if I’m wrong and there is something along those lines somewhere in Wikipedia’s Five Pillars or guidelines or essays, I hope you will provide me with a blue link so I can read it and expand my knowledge of how Wikipedia intends to operate. Dolphin (t) 14:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dolphin51 hey, you are quite right that things should be discussed before ending up noticeboards. Otherwise there would be a lot more traffic on noticeboards than there already is. My only point in all of this has been to point out that old mate has the onus to obtain consensus and to point out that they've technically been reverting against consensus repeatedly. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. TarnishedPath^talk 14:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dr.Editorias: please provide us with a Wikipedia manual or style or policy which supports your argument. Absent that you've been reverted a number of times on a WP:BLP and WP:BLPUNDEL applies. The onus is on you to obtain consensus, not on anyone else to agree with your sense of uniformity. I also note that you've been editing a few politician BLPs to make them look like the formatting you want so your argument that this editing just follows the 'norm' is one supported by your editing in that direction. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)