Jump to content

Talk:Gough Whitlam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wehwalt (talk | contribs) at 17:17, 30 September 2023 (CIA and the dismissal: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleGough 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 25, 2004, and on November 5, 2014.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
March 24, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
January 23, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 20, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 9, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... 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

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]