Talk:Peter Hollingworth

Controversy

Notes about controversy:

Stories about maladministration started to break in late 2001.

Further allegations about a series of coverups - "Sunday" program, 2002/02/17. The television program claimed that Dr. Hollingworth attempted to cover up the abuse of Guy Murphy, a teacher at an Anglican school in Toowoomba, amongst other coverups.

Controversy about an "Australian Story" appearance 2002/02/18 - in regards to a bishop who had sex with an under-age parishoner: "The great tragedy about this situation is that the genesis of it was 40 years ago and it occurred between a young priest and a teenage girl who was under the age of consent. I believe she was more than 14. And I also understand that many years later in adult life, their relationship resumed and it was partly a pastoral relationship and it was partly something more. My belief is that this was not sex abuse. There was no suggestion of rape or anything like that. Quite the contrary, my information is that it was, rather, the other way around. And I don't want to say any more than that."

Anglican Church in Brisbane instituted its own internal inquiry around the same time.

Age editorial called for resignation around Feb. 19, 2002 - and if he wouldn't resign, Howard should sack him.

When did Crean call for resignation??

On Feb. 21 - Crean called for the Governor-General's resignation, citing the Governor-General's "serious errors of judgement" and referring to what he viewed as the lack of support for the governor-general in the community and the damage that the controversy was causing to the office.

What did Howard reply - same day, Howard gave a press conference where he stated that he believe that while Dr. Hollingworth may have made "errors of judgement", Howard saw no evidence that Hollingworth had been "soft on child abuse". He further responded that he did not believe that sacking the governor-general on the basis of the current controversy was wise, because of the future risk that a future governor-general may be hounded out of office purely through "unreasonable scrutiny".

There the matter basically rested until May 2003, when the final report of the Anglican Church enquiry was tabled in the Queensland State Parliament by the Premier, Peter Beattie. It had to be tabled in parliament for media discussion to occur, because without parliamentary privilege presumably it was libellous.

The report

--Robert Merkel

Sources:

• http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday//feature_stories/transcript_1267.asp - Sunday program, 2003/05/05 to the following website;
• http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/AnglicanReport.pdf - the report by the Anglican Church

---

the last paragraph seems outdated. --Jiang

On 21 March 2007, on the Radio National Australia Talks Back program discussing Wikipedia, Mr Hollingworth called as "Peter" asking questions of the founder of the Wikipedia about its policy on biographies about living poeple, and in particular the misstatements of fact in this particular page. It is understandable that he should. Anyone coming to this page would conclude that Mr Hollingworth is a "bad man".

In reality, Mr Hollingworth was highly regarded in Australia prior to his elevation to Brisbane, and later the Governor Generalship. He was in my opinion correctly percieved, espeically in Melbourne, and espeically because of his work with the Brotherhoold of St Lawrence, as a progressive church leader who was deeply engaged with many social and economic justice issues. He improved the world. It was then said, snidely, that he became increasingly bewitched by the honour and prestege of the finery of the eclesiastical clothing.

The page does not explain the context of Prime Minister Howard appointing this good man to essentially vacuous position of GG. In particular, that Labor Governments had been able to appoint a series of inspirational men to this position, Stephens et al. It was seen as something of a coup (i.e. split stratgegy) to appoint Hollingworth who had a strong leftish aura about him.

The consequence is that Howard thereafter appointed a non-entity to the position, a man called Jeffreys, who no one in Australia can picture or recall, and who makes no efforts to reverse this situation. I.e. it was a political loss for Howard, who then ruled off this possibility of changing the cultural agenda, and moved on to more profitable areas, such as gaoling refugees, and pretending to participate in the Iraq war.RMcPhee 10:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything specifically wrong with the page. It's rather long on the controversy while he was G-G, but the fact is that's been the major public part of his life. But the facts themselves seem to me to be broadly correct, as I remember them. If there are any factual errors, I and other Wikipedia editors will do our best to correct them. Point the errors out here on this talk page - with links to external documentation if at all possible. Rocksong 10:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

UTC, you are correct.

But what we choose to remember defines the reputation. What defines those choices?

I personally believe PH should be proud of his public life, but I also believe he dealt with long standing sexual abuse in the queensland diocese badly. That was before he was GG. How did it come about that this sin in particular became relevant to a later career? Did it define an new conditino to becoming GG, an utterly politically blameless life? If so, it redefines that institution in a new way. But i don't thing so; if the new GG is a perfect specimen of the new type of GG then it is a dull nong.

The article does not tell lies, but does not tell the truth. The PH affair was dynamatie was because of the failed referundum on australia's republic, the left rejecting that solution, moral fear of men in religious frocks, old institutions versus new revelations, howard browbeated historian about the black armband of history, the GG being perceived as a government minister, and and so on, I can't remember them all. Perhaps something can be done.RMcPhee 14:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This article fairly faithfully, and non-judgementally, records the accusations and responses at the time. Like it or not, Hollingworth resigned because his position became untenable due to events that happened a long time ago - that's all the article says, and any inference or otherwise that Hollingworth is a "bad man" is solely in the eye of the beholder. There is, however, a huge problem with the lack of inline citations and references, and I'm surprised the article has lasted this long in such a poorly-referenced state given WP:BLP. Hollingworth implied on ABC that the article accurately reflected media coverage, but claimed that the media coverage was incorrect. I don't think anyone who was the subject of a scandal, whether or not they had actually done anything wrong, is going to be happy with media coverage of what happened, which will tend to focus on the negative and sensational. --Canley 03:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hollingworth and Wikipedia

I have reverted the removal of this section on the basis that Hollingworth has made WP an important issue for him by calling in and speaking to Wales about it. He alleges that this article has defamed him and that he may sue. It pretty much seemed like a threat to me when I was listening to him. I think this makes it notable and worth recording. I don't believe it breaches WP:ASR as it was Hollingworth who made it an issue for himself. Could we try and reach a consensus to keep or remove that section please? Gillyweed 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Calling into a radio show is not a notable enough part of someone's life that it should be included in his biography. Hollingworth has done far more notable things than this, which wasn't even noticed by news outlets, and this certainly isn't 10% of what should be covered, so, to remain neutral, it shouldn't be 10% of his bio. --Rory096 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it was noticed by the news outlets with Crikey reporting it the next day. [1] and only a few days later found it onto at least one well regarded blog [2]. I think it is too early to tell whether this is NOT biographical material. As for it making up 10% of the article, that's because it is a Hollingworth quote. We are quoting the man himself. Perhaps more needs to be written about the other aspects of his life to bring the 10% down. I don't think percentages are a way of determining either notability or balance. Let's give it a week and if the consensus from the other editors is that it should go or be trimmed then I will go with the consensus view. Gillyweed 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Crikey and a "well regarded blog". Yep, that's big time news coverage. Not. I think it should be removed, and wait a few days to see if it gets any real coverage. Rocksong 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. also waiting a week or two gives perspective on how important something is. Rocksong 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This incident has now been mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald, so it has been mentioned by a major news outlet. --Canley 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it's still pretty minor. In (say) 5 years' time, when we look at Hollingworth's career to that time, will that phone call be notable? Rocksong 03:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just pointing out the reference. I actually agree with you, I think that section is trivial navel gazing and doesn't belong in the article, but we'll see how it goes. --Canley 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading these comments, and the edits to the article, I still find it deeply troubling. Even more disturbing is the new reference to him calling Australia Talks Back. It presents him as a trivial and deluded old man pursuing this very organization in a misguided libel suit. I suspect that there is a fundamental lack of bias here. You can footnote things to make you seem objective, but if 75% of the article flows from the original charge that "In 2001 allegations emerged in a civil case that Hollingworth had failed to act with compassion when confronted with stories of child abuse at an Anglican school", then you must wonder about not only the relevance of the societal debate about Hollingworth, but also the reason for the nature of this biography.

How is this article biased? I can't really articulate it now. If I had the time I would try to. My feeling is that it lacks an analysis of the contemporary political and church context that made his situation so explosive, that gave rise to other baseless charges, that made Lindsay Tanner attack him so brutally.

Ultimately, it just seems like a morality tale, i.e. a warning to children - don't appear unsympathetic if you are a boss of an organization and people in your organization are vicious creeps. But how does that relate to his role as Governor-General? Must a Governor-General be a moral paradigm?

I seem to be babbling. This article could be a lot better.202.137.86.171 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Section removed

I've removed the controversy section. Please do not restore it unless it can be referenced and written in compliance with the BLP policy (the policy governing biographies of living subjects). It looks like the section consists of one unsubstantiated allegation of lack of sympathy, and one completely unsubstantiated and abandoned allegation of abuse. I think we could safely leave both events out of this article. Avruch ^T 18:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Much of the information may be true - but stuff like this needs cast-iron inline referencing.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree, in principle, that unsourced controversial comments should be removed from articles, it also seems important that articles on people who have been involved in significant controversies (such as Peter Hollingworth has), regardless of the true facts of the matters, do not just vaguely refer to the issues for lack of such sources being readily available. Not sure what the solution is with this article but it seems rather weak without any real treatment of the controversies that led to his resignation as G-G. Afterwriting (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely a hole with regard to information about his resignation, that is true. But restoring the old controversies section isn't an acceptable solution. What we need is a new, well written and fully sourced treatment of that event. I may get around to writing it, if I can find sources, but no guarantees. Feel free to drop in something if you have the time. Avruch ^T 12:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made comment against the inclusion of the material relating to PH's resignation in the past, believing it to be unbalanced, but I did not take the point that the material was insufficiently referenced.

But I agree that the article in its present state is faulty by not discussing those matters. There may be people who are curious why PH was induced to resign, it is a significant point in Australian political history, it is a key event in the evolution of the institution of the Governer-General, the continuing struggle of victims of church sexual abuse, the relationship between the prime minister and the governer general, and the republican movement. I believe that there should be a narrative about those events. It is a fascinating story, relatively. It will be seen as an important event, and wikipedia should record it now.

I guess it might be in my court to try to do that. I would but that I am biased. I think that PH was utterly blameless in the matter, and that he became a societal and politcal scapegoat for eroneous irrational and other reasons and for base personal reasons. Principally, ex Australian Prime Minister Mr John Howard who is the most hideous shit that the universal arse deposited upon the face of the earth. I apologise for that. In any case, I would encourage anyone who cares about the issue to improve this article.1f2 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)