|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia||(Rated B-class)|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geoffrey Blainey article.|
|WikiProject Australia / History||(Rated Start-class)|
|To-do list for Geoffrey Blainey:|
D.O.B=March 11, 1930 --Randolph 04:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A page on the The Tyranny of Distance would be worthwhile (currently a disambig page).
The balance of this article is POV in itself. His early career needs fleshing out. His contribution to Tasmanian history, and considerable energies in many directions came well before any of the points in this article so far, it does him a disservice. 22.214.171.124 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well knock yourself out. Add it. Lao Wai 16:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This article as it stands is a complete distortion of his career and needs to be rewritten (yes, yes, I should do it myself.). Adam 13:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, to say that Blainey is most famous for his anti-immigration rhetoric is dishonest at best. Previous authors have seen it fit to include unreferenced or verifiable information and anecdotes that have no place in an encyclopaedia. I would recommend a complete re-write. So I'll get cracking. Cheerio. Lord Gallahad 05:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Assertions about Hanson
Although commentators have linked Hanson's speech and Blainey, a transcript for her maiden speech contains no direct reference to Blainey - see http://www.paulinehanson.com.au/Maiden_Speech.htm . Many Google references link Hanson and Blainey in the same breath but I don't see a ref from Hanson linking herself in any way with Blainey. For example within her site, his name does not appear --Golden Wattle talk 19:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
A cursory search of Geoffrey Blainey in Google will show that most mainstream commentators, including the Australian Parliament have linked him to radical right-wing politics Aust. Parliament Research Paper. Yet references to this obvious part of his life are being often deleted from information about his career. Wikipedia has never been about censorship in cases where reliable sources support the information.
I contend this information should be included, "He has been a controversial figure too, and according to the Australian parliament is most often associated with radical right-wing politics Parliament Research Paper. Blainey has also been accused of being anti-Asian immigration to Australia, leading to claims of racism. He has been closely aligned with the government of John Howard in Australia, with the Prime Minister shadowing Blainey's conservative views on some issues, especially the view that Australian history has been hijacked by social liberals."
This is not partisan information, but reflects historical facts, as supported by the Australian Parliament. The information is really beyond dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathdefying (talk • contribs) 03:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thats a crock of shit and you know it. The source you provided says nothing of the sort and certainly not in the terms you've presented above. At most it says that Howard's views often mirror those of Blainey's, much like Keating and Manning Clark held similar opinions. But to attempt phraseology such as "often associated with radical right-wing politics" and "Australian history has been hijacked by social liberals." is dishonest and misleading. And where does it discuss "anti-Asian immigration"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have come to this discussion late, but I see no reason the information about Blainey being part of the radical right should not be included. To quote from the Australian Parliament  report: "Leading historians such as the late Professor Manning Clark and Professor Geoffrey Blainey have become strongly identified with the partisan politics of the liberal left and the radical right respectively." To say this is a "crock of shit" is simply untrue. It is there in black and white. Blainey does not days hide his close association with the right wing fringe. If Wikipedia is to hold any relevance, it should be honest enough to portray history truthfully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
"Thats a crock of shit and you know it." A good edit is one that is not based on emotion. It would seem you are so keen to defend Geoffrey Blainey you cannot look at the evidence.
Blainey has been clearly connected to the radical right throughout his career. The Australian parliamentary library no less says he is is a member of "radical right". There is no room for negotiations on this and no confusion. Blainey is a right winger of the most radical kind. He has been his entire career.
You should seek to put aside your personal bias and accept that the great historian cannot, himself, undo history on this point.
Your dismissal of the evidence is akin to denying Lenin was of the left, or that Mussolini was on the extreme right. I would urge you to try and give up your personal agendas for the sake of a legitimate history of this important Australian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathdefying (talk • contribs) 03:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Referring to Manning Clark, who became something of a Communist fellow traveler (interestingly he was something of a Nazi sympathizer, or at least apologist until they invaded Denmark and Norway in 1940) as "liberal left" and Blainey as "extreme right" shows more where on the ideological spectrum the person saying it stands. If you're at the south pole, Tasmania and New Zealand, or even Patagonia are the "far north"! Blainey is certainly more conservative than Clark, or Macintyre. But this doesn't make him part of the "extreme right". This really came about after the immigration controversy in 1984, and it was because anyone in public life who questioned either the proportion of Asian immigration or immigration in general was written off as "racist" and "extreme right wing" (hint hint, they're akin to Nazis). Certainly the controversy caused Blainey to be come something of a cause celebre amongst the far right of Australian politics, but there is no evidence to show that he was so involved 'throughout his career' as alleged above. Furthermore the link provided does not say that he is either. It DOES quote him as criticizing the "black armband approach" (he also criticized the "three cheers" approach), and Howard being influenced by him. Just because Hanson was known to be against mass Asian immigration doesn't make her an "associate" of Blainey, and him part of the "extreme right". The ALP, under its far from right wing leader Arthur Calwell (who was more left wing than Whitlam) opposed Asian immigration until less than 20 years prior to Blainey's speech. Does that make Labor part of the "extreme right"? Whitlam himself didn't want to bring in these "yellow blats" from Vietnam as the South fell in 1975. I guess he must be extreme right wing too.
I've taken the liberty of removing some of the clearer POV stuff. If you're going to accuse someone of contributing to bullying of asian children, lets at least have a source for it. Michaeles 05:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I had added citation tags - the normal course is to request sources - not remove material befoe giving people a chance to respond. On the other hand I am not inclined to revert the changes - I don't disagree that strongly that the material was unsourced and I had looked and could not find out any stand out sources to support the assertions.--Golden Wattle talk 08:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- The grammar and syntax is appalling. For example, there is a two-word sentence fragment orphaned out there all by its lonely self -- "quoted in ." Why is "quoted in" treated as a sentence? Who was quoted and in what? There are numerous examples of what appears to be evidence that portions of this entry were written by myopic simians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- The reference to the 1999 referendum reads like republican propaganda - "After the decisive failure in 1999 of the referendum to make Australia a republic, Blainey and the constitutional lawyer, Professor Colin Howard, were singled out by the Australian republicans’ leader, Malcolm Turnbull, as deserving a special share of the blame" - that doesn't read like a neutral comment to me.220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. Turnbull said a lot of things at the time, including claiming that night that "Howard will go down in history as the Prime Minister who broke Australia's heart" - why? Not for refugee policy, or gun ownership, but because he didn't personally support republicanism, and it had failed to attract enough support. Really it was the whinging of a bad loser. Turnbull didn't want to look to his own actions and campaign, and see where it failed. Specifically he and his supporters just said that a republic was "inevitable" for 7 years leading up to the vote, and therefore there was no need to discuss the pros and cons, and then suddenly had to say it wasn't and begin to explain why people should back it. The "blame" was at least as much on Turnbull and Co, who were also lulled into complacency by the fact the bulk of the media supported them, and hence didn't ask such questions. Since his ego can't accept that he made bad decisions and wrong choices, he has to find scapegoats, and make it sound like there was some terrible conspiracy. I don't think that Turnbull's outburst adds much other than his own POV at being disappointed in a referendum vote.