Talk:Joh Bjelke-Petersen

Talk:Joh Bjelke-Petersen/archive1

"Thanks to the gerry meander"

Are we to psycho-analyse this comment?

Please leave it as "due to the gerry meander", not "thanks to the gerry meander", for obvious reasons.

NPOV

I take issue with this statement: "but it in fact was a more democratic refinement of a system that was introduced by the Labor Party in 1949". Although the Bjelkemander article claims that the system previously set up by the Labor Party was undemocratic, calling Bjelke-Petersen's new system "more democratic" is stretching it a bit far. No-one but the most one eyed Joh fans would call him or his government "democratic"; the Bjelkemander page shows that he became premier in 1972 despite having the smallest percentage of votes of the three main parties. I would argue that the previous system set up by the ALP was undemocratic, but calling the replacement system "more democratic" is misleading POV. WepV 07:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The current version of the page has removed any description as more/less democratic and has simply stated that the system wasn't introduced by Sir Joh.

---

Thank you, this is a fairer description, but I think it could be worded better. I've changed the wording from:

'His administration was kept in power by an electoral malapportionment where rural votes were given greater power than those in city areas. This was known as the "Bjelke-mander" even though the system was introduced by the Labor Party in 1949.'

to

'His administration was kept in power by an electoral malapportionment where rural votes were given greater power than those in city areas. This was known as the "Bjelke-mander". The system of malapportionment was originally introduced by the Labor Party, but was changed by Bjelke-Petersen in 1971 (who was premier at the time) to favour his Country Party.

I'm genuinely interested in having this article become fairer and more honest, and I welcome any feedback to this change. WepV 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Post death discussion

Is it worth mentioning the miniseries Joh's Jury, based on the court case?.--DooMDrat 09:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think it should probably appear in a "references" section. Slac speak up! 09:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any real info on the series, unfortunately.--DooMDrat 10:02, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

There is absolutely no doubt that (a) Bjelke-Petersen was thoroughly corrupt (b) that he would have been convicted had it not been for the corruption of the jury and (c) that he would have been convicted had there been a second trial. I am not going to try to edit the article accordingly because I detest Bjelke-Petersen so much I cannot be objective, but someone should try to convey these facts in an encyclopaedic manner. Adam 03:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All we need do is find the right person to quote. I know Ross Fitzgerald had rather a good piece on the ABC Website, and Quentin Dempster as well. So long as we're just relaying the comments of others, there should be no problem. Slac speak up! 03:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joh for Canberra As I recall, this was Joh for PM. I remember the bumper stickers in the courier mail.

It was originally "Joh for PM" - after the rather severe implications for Coalition unity, it was hastily changed to "Joh for Canberra". Slac speak up! 19:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australians

There's no doubt that Joh was about as paternalistic towards Aboriginal Australians as you could get, but I think that if we're going to state his reasons for blocking the land sale, we need a definitive source, not speculation. Nor were protest marches in the 1970s and 80s conducted peacefully. There was a lot of violence and while the Queensland cops were often unprincipled thugs, the protest leaders were certainly no angels. I speak as a university student in Queensland during those years. The "permit" system as written in the article made it sound like people couldn't walk about in groups of more than three and there was certainly more to it than that. It was quite legal to mount a protest march along the footpath, for instance, without even applying for a permit. Pete 06:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll change it to a direct quote and add a source, it's mentioned in the text of Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen ([1]). It was a cabinet memo from December 1972, Gibbs CJ quotes from it in his judgement: "The Queensland Government does not view favourably proposals to acquire large areas of additional freehold or leasehold land for development by Aborigines or Aboriginal groups in isolation." --bainer (talk) 07:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Good quote. Well done. Pete 07:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I came across it when I was writing the article on the case, I should have put it in straight away but it was a little unwieldy. --bainer (talk) 07:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Field's ALP membership

The word "nominal" does not apply that Field's membership of the ALP was invalid. It merely expresses the facts of the situation: he fulfilled the technical membership requirements of the ALP while exhibiting totally opposing loyalties. The whole point of ALP membership is to support party policy and candidates; Field did neither publicly. He was totally obscure before Bjelke-Petersen brought him up and had no support from within the party organisation. Futhermore, as far as I'm aware, running or being named as a political candidate claiming ALP affiliation while not having been endorsed is grounds for expulsion. To describe him simply as an "ALP member" gives rise to a reasonable but inaccurate assumption that he was a person who followed party rules and supported party candidates (and in turn had at least some level of organisational support). To be honest, I don't see why describing him as "nominal" is a problem. Slac speak up! 07:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that Field was an old Grouper who had for some perverse reason stayed in the ALP rather than leaving with Gair in 1957. By 1975 he had not been an active member for nearly 20 years. But his nominal membership gave Bjelke the ability to claim that Field was a "true Labor" nominee rather than his creature. Under ALP rules, Field ceased to be an ALP member immediately he allowed his name to be put forward for nomination in opposition to the endorsed ALP candidate. Adam 07:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nominal" means "in name only", implying that his membership was somehow less real than anyone else's. So long as he was a paid-up member of an ALP branch, he was an ALP member, exactly the same as any other, and in no way merely nominal. The point of ALP membership is not to "support party policy and candidates", it's to participate in making party policy, and in nominating those candidates. That he was in a minority within the party doesn't make his point of view any less valid. Minority factions often don't have "organisational support"; they work to get that support, or try to.

Field didn't stand as a candidate for election against an endorsed candidate. The nomination of a replacement senator is not an election, and there are no candidates. The State parliament simply names a replacement, and (until 1977) could name whomever it liked. The ALP was, of course, free to expel Field for any reason it liked, or no reason at all, but it is simply wrong to say that he broke party rules by standing against an endorsed candidate.

The convention was that the spot should go to the party that won it at the previous election, and Joh respected that convention, and was willing to work with the ALP on filling the spot with someone who would be acceptable to it. But the ALP insisted that the convention reduced Joh's role to a mere rubber stamp, and he saw no reason to go along with that view.

zsero 03:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That at very least is a matter of dispute. The article cannot endorse that perspective. The suggestion that Joh didn't break convention in making this appointment I have never encountered outside of this talk page . . . the ALP may have itself also broken convention, but that doesn't mean Joh didn't. Slac speak up! 23:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If Joh wanted to ignore the convention he could have appointed a Country Party member. But he didn't do that; he asked the ALP for a short list from which he would pick one. That's not ignoring the convention. Remember, a convention is not a law, it's just a custom that has been observed for some time. It's not written, so the details can be vague. Was it the custom that parliament had to accept the party's nominee, no matter who it was? Who's to say? Was there ever a previous occasion on which a party presented a premier with a nominee who was unacceptable to him, and wouldn't negotiate? Zsero 05:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor Referencing

I have added POV and Unreferenced flags to this page because there is a distinct lack of referencing, regardless of whether or not the prose is factually correct. For an article of this length, two references is simply appalling.

May I ask why you have added the {{POV}} tag? The {{unreferenced}} tag speaks for itself, but we cannot know what POV problems you have with the article unless you can explain them for us. --bainer (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'd like to put a pronuncation key in for Joh's rather unusual name. The two ways I remember it pronounced were "B'yok-ya" and "B'yok-ee". By the way I hate using IPA coz it's stupid and indecipherable to anyone without a degree in linguistics. --Jquarry 22:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Without a degree? Not at all. Dictionaries everywhere use IPA, and they wouldn't if people couldn't read it. IPA (under which the "correct" pronunciation of his name in English (it's a Danish name) is /ˌbjɜlkəˈpіːtəsən/, is no less comprehensible than the ad hoc pronunciation guides that some dictionaries and reference works attempt to make things "easier" for laypeople, despite the fact that such guides are all but useless for non-native speakers. Slac speak up! 00:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have two university degrees and I can assure Slac that IPA is completely incomprehensible to 99% of the population and should be banned from Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia is ruled by the 1% so I know that won't happen. Joh's name was usually pronouced "Byelkee-Petersen", or "Byelkuh-Petersen," but "Buh-jell-kee-Petersen" was not uncommon, especially in Queensland. Adam 00:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Now come on Slac, your very example proves my point. I don't know anyone who can decipher that IPA string. Even when you goto the page with the IPA pronunciation key, all it gives you is "conversions" of each symbol into known English sounds! So what's the use of that? As for "ad-hoc" guides for non-native speakers, well there's so much regional variation of the same word (eg. tomay-to/tomah-to) that IPA serves no better. Sorry I'm getting off-topic.... but Slac I can see your point with non-English phonemes, and other furfies, and I don't mind so much if an IPA guide is included, but I believe an "ad-hoc" guide is far more preferable and useful. Anyway that's a discussion for another time&place... --Jquarry 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Woops! I got so sidetracked I forgot what I was talking about... yes that's right, I remember Sir Joh's name pronounced (in NSW where I lived at the time) as I mentioned above. Added with Adam's and Slac's (probably correct in the original Danish) pronunciations, there's *alot* of variation which you would expect with such an English-unfriendly group of letters. Nevertheless I'll collect them all into the article. --Jquarry 09:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam i remember when this last came up - mine and User:jtdirl's protests that IPA was about as good as Aramaic for most readers were shot down by others - lead by a linguistics scholar i should add. PMA 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Jquarry, I have never heard Bjelke pronounced "B'yok-ya" or "B'yok-ee" or anything like it. I have no idea how it's pronounced in Denmark. I was giving the Australian pronunciations of his name. Adam 12:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam, so was I.... I gotta admit "B'yok'ya" is how I always remember hearing it said, and I always thought it weird... up until yesterday when my better-half set me straight. In my defence this was probably in part due to the Aussie habit of saying their middle L's weakly and mangling vowels, so that "B'yel'kee" can sound like anything from "B'yek'ee" to "B'yok'ya". (Compare with how we say million as "mew-yun" or even "mee-yun". Eech.) Long story short I won't include my idiot pronunciation in the article. --Jquarry 06:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Jquarry on this one... I'm not Australian, but lived in Brisbane for 4 years, and heard plenty about Bjelke-Petersen (working in a university, and living with artists.) I always heard it as Byorky (with something like the usual Australian 'or' (horse) or 'ough' (brought) pronunciation - this is where IPA really does come in handy!) When I first actually saw the spelling, I was completely puzzled. Bar fly high 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Joh album

The addition is nothing more than a vexatious, politically-driven addition. It has nothing to do with Joh's life, and is only there to defame him. In addition, no reference is provided, and material that is not cited is subject to immediate deletion if its authenticity is questioned. I will remove the line in 24 hours. michael ^talk 05:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the libel/political comments, but the fact seems to be true, and is related to his life. So I do not think we should remove it completely. It would still be fair to add a sentence stating that the band was criticising Petersen for his policies. Rimmeraj 08:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate seeing Wikipedia articles degenerate into shitheaps of what this person/groups views are on particular issues. Never mind there is no references; all of the political leaders of Australia have endured a degree of lampooning and pop culture stereotypes, but that nonsense is irrelevant to their lives and careers. Adam already had to clean this article up the other day. Why should people who don't even engage in discussion be able to run rampant to no consequence? Bjelke might have been a bible basher, but damn, there's a hell of a lot more Bjelke bashers out there! michael ^talk 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The entry doesn't bash Sir Joh, it merely records the fact that several songs by notable bands did bash him. That's a notable fact about him, that belongs in any encyclopedia article on him. If there have been any notable positive depictions of him in popular culture, they should be included too. Zsero 01:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. This is about Joh, and his life—not about what a bunch of idiotic bands thought of him. I'd hate to see more Australian articles follow the trend that has seen American political articles degrade terribly, with them being less about what a person has done, and more about what pop-culture thinks of them. These articles aren't about "views", they're about people. michael ^talk 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a couple of student activists trying to play funnybuggers and put their views onto a Wikipedia page. Keep it in your idiotic blogs and your petty papers. michael ^talk 23:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm Down. This article is about Joh and his influence on the world, including pop culture. I someone wrote a song about him it should be included. It is in a seperate section, down the bottom of the article, it is in no danger of dominating the article. You have now had your change reverted more than three times. Please do not revert again. Why are you so keen to censor this information? And please keep the personal attacks out of it. I am not a student. Rimmeraj 23:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm down? Far out. Okay, for fairness' sake, we'd better make sure that every single other politician in Australia's history has a '[name] in Popular Culture' section, as it's vitally important to their lives. What a joke. michael ^talk 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly no Labor partisan, and I can see nothing wrong with the pop culture section as it stands (with Stranglers, Redgum and Skyhooks references). Leaving aside a sober analysis of the man's record for one moment, one could argue that no Australian politician besides Gough Whitlam and Pauline Hanson (who also inspired popular songs) inspired such divided passions: a fact reflected in these albums. If the band is notable independent of the Joh-themed tracks, I'd say keep the reference in. Joestella 00:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I support statements made by Joestella and Rimmeraj. WikiTownsvillian 02:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of "references in popular culture" sections in Wikipedia in the first place, but come on, these references are really, really lame. Everyone lampooned Joh, why single out those three? One of them an obscure UK band, and another (Redgum) who were a protest band who targetted everyone on the right wing of politics (it would have been more noteworthy if Redgum didn't target Joh). That leaves a Skyhooks song from 1979, way past their peak in popularity. Far more useful to mention the fact that he was regular fare for editorial cartoonists and TV comedians. Rocksong 03:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All three bands are notable enough to have their own WP entries. And their work is published in a non-ephemeral form, unlike newspaper cartoons. But if you have some specific example of a notable cartoon or TV representation, whether positive or negative (surely there must have been some positive depictions, mustn't there?), by all means list them. If the list gets inordinately long, we might have to weed out the less notable ones, but three examples is hardly too many. Zsero 03:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to me, a reference in a 1970s song which wasn't a hit, struggles to meet the criterion of "References in popular culture". And I think the Redgum reference should definitely be removed because they were a protest group who targetted many people. I agree with Michael that it actually detracts from the article. (That said, I can't be bothered removing it myself unless there's a consensus). Rocksong 03:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is idiocy like this that speeds the overall decline in Wikipedia articles. They're becoming less well-written refined articles, and more a pop-culture 'views of this, views of that' mess. If you want to keep up the Joh-bashing, decades after his rule ended and years after his death, you can do it elsewhere. I'm very tempted to start adding to my collection of books on Joh and just rewrite this whole article. michael ^talk 03:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to distinguish my position from Michael's: my objection is not that the 70s song references are Joh-bashing, but that they are too obscure. Rocksong 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to claim that they're not notable, why don't you start an AfD for the three groups? Or at least for the Stranglers album? Zsero 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean those bands are irrelevant per se. I mean they're too irrelevant to Joh to be in the Joh article. Too many Wikipedia editors seem to think that an encyclopedia article on X needs to include every reference to X in a newspaper/book/song/whatever. I agree with Michael on that: it's the sort of useless information which clutters Wikipedia and actually detracts from it. Rocksong 04:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not every example needs to be listed, but surely a representative sample should be. The original entry, whose deletion started this discussion, was just the Stranglers. That album is notable enough to have its own entry, so surely the song is notable enough to be mentioned here, as a representative of the class if as nothing else. Zsero 05:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still think The Stanglers are pretty obscure - either they were much bigger than they were in Oz, or they've got a dedicated fan on Wikipedia. But whatever. I've given my opinion and I'll let the consensus decide. Rocksong 11:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Whitlam government unpopular.

The article reads, Fraser used this control to prevent passage of the Supply Bills through Parliament, denying Whitlam's unpopular government the legal capacity to appropriate funds for government business and leading to his dismissal as Prime Minister. and that word "unpopular" is one I've inserted. Perhaps it could be reworded, and I invite other editors to have a go, but I think it is critical to understanding the affair that we recognise that the Whitlam government was very much on the nose at that stage.

Whitlam barely scraped home in 1974 after just a year and a half in office. His government then had a string of disasters as minister after minister was forced to resign until in late 1975 it was quite clear that if an election were held, Whitlam would be tossed out. That knowledge gave Fraser the incentive to act. It wasn't as if he dreamt up the tactic of delaying Supply just to have Kerr temporarily dismiss Whitlam - he knew that if an election were the voters would boot Whitlam out.

And no, it's not just my opinion that the Whitlam government was unpopular. It's backed up by the polls and the Bass by-election, as referenced by any history of the time. Except ours, apparently. Reading the Whitlam article, one might imagine that it was solely Fraser's underhanded tactics that felled a mighty leader, when the truth is that Fraser merely seized the opportunity to let the people have a say, knowing the result of any vote. --Pete 15:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, you don't need all that to prove that Whitlam was unpopular at that time. The result on 13-Dec-1975 said that very clearly, and the result on 10-Dec-1977 showed that this wasn't some momentary whim of the public. And it should be obvious that oppositions don't go to extraordinary lengths to force elections that they're not confident of winning.

The claim was that inserting the word "unpopular" implies that the government was "illegitimate", thus "justifying" the actions taken to topple it. Of course a government doesn't become illegitimate just because of a slump in popularity. Most governments have those, and often manage to recover in time for the next election. When that happens, the opposition tries to force an early election, and the government tries to resist. That's how the system works.

When the opposite is the case, when the government is on a high which it's afraid won't last, it's tempted to call an early election itself, and the opposition tries, generally unsuccessfully, to stave it off. Fraser's tactics in 1975 were no more or less 'illegitimate' than Hawke's tactics in 1987, calling the election in July to take advantage of the damage the Joh campaign had done to the opposition.

Zsero 16:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is claiming that an unpopular government is illegitimate? Nobody is suggesting that Whitlam wasn't elected fairly and squarely. But he certainly led his team steadily downhill from 1972 in the eyes of the general public, and that's what prompted Fraser to act. As for Joh, he certainly contributed to Whitlam's decline, often taking the opprtunity to inflict a telling blow, such as his role in the Gair Affair. --Pete 17:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you inserting a paragraph explaining this in Australian constitutional crisis of 1975. Nor do I have a problem with you inserting something like this as a justification for Joh's actions, if you can show it was part of Joh's motivation. But I do have a problem with you inserting it in the one-sentence-summary of those events ("Fraser used this control to prevent passage of the Supply Bills through Parliament, denying Whitlam's unpopular government the legal capacity to appropriate funds for government business and leading to his dismissal as Prime Minister."), because (IMHO) it's out of place in a one sentence summary and has no accompanying explanation. Rocksong 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So a paragraph in an article is fine, but you strain at one word in a sentence. It is precisely in place in this one sentence summary, because it supplies a crucial piece of information that explains to the casual reader just what was going on. In any case, it's sufficient that Skyring put it in - you need a concrete reason to remove it, and you haven't given one. It's an undisputed fact that the government was unpopular, it doesn't bloat the sentence, it's not a weasel word, so just what is your objection? I'm putting it back in, and it should remain in unless a consensus emerges here to delete it. Zsero 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My objection is it's an oversimplification which needs explanation. Everything else in the sentence is an undeniable fact. "Unpopular" deserves explanation. How unpopular? It is not undisputed that the government was unpopular - it depends on your definition of "unpopular". Rocksong 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh? How many definitions of "unpopular" are there? It's a simple word, and it has a simple definition. It's not a close call; whatever threshold you set for unpopularity, in late 1975 the government was below it. If there has ever been an unpopular government in Australian history, this was it. The results on 13-Dec-1975 speak for themselves. Zsero 05:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We're getting somewhat distracted here. I interpret Pete's edit summary when he made the original edit as attempting to clarify/explain why the opposition took the action that it did - the government was unpopular. My contention is that (1) that's an unnecessary explanation; as above, the opposition would hardly have attempted it otherwise; and (2) the practical effect is to offer "back-hand encouragement" if you like, to the opposition's move - oh, it's alright, they were unpopular. The sentence as it stands, without "unpopular" is perfectly informative and accurate, and the addition causes additional problems. Slac speak up! 02:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the government was unpopular. Fraser's actions were "alright" in the eyes of the voters of the time, who gave far more than "back-hand encouragement". I don't see any problem with historical truth. I see a problem with you supporting a version that implies otherwise. Wikipedia shouldn't offer a Whitlam-as-innocent-martyr POV. He and his government were unpopular, which is why Fraser acted. Joh-the-political-thug probably would have done exactly the same thing re Field if Whitlam had been riding high in the polls. He certainly wasn't averse to giving Whitlam a kick in the bum through the Senate with the Gair affair in 1974, when Whitlam still retained popular support. --Pete 04:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And here's where we get into the "unpopularity removes legitimacy" idea that I reacted to earlier. My two points stand. Slac speak up! 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Where do you get that? The Whitlam government was clearly legitimate, despite its unpopularity. So were Fraser's attempts to remove it. Ultimately the voters decided the matter, endorsing Fraser's action with the biggest mandate in Australian history. It seems to me that by removing the word "unpopular", you're trying to give "back-hand encouragement" (your phrase) to the idea that Fraser's actions were somehow illegitimate. Zsero 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fraser's actions certainly were not legitimate in the eyes of Whitlam and many others. Whether I think they were or not is neither here nor there, but it's not indisputed that they were. We've reached the nub here: yes, I do want to remove it to avoid overtly encouraging the sentiment that they were legitimate, since by no means not everyone saw it that way. Slac speak up! 06:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And not everybody agrees that an unpopular government remains legitimate. If everyone did agree on that, then you wouldn't object to the word, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You can't have it both ways. You want to avoid giving the impression (far from overt) that Fraser's actions were legitimate, but you also want to give the impression (equally covert, if that's a word that makes sense here) that Whitlam's government was legitimate. NPOV doesn't mean "Leftist Point of View". Removing the word is neither more nor less POV than inserting it. So why don't we forget hidden messages, and just stick to making sure the overt facts stated are accurate, relevant, and not too wordy, and let the reader form her own POV. In other words, leave it in. -- Zsero 07:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fraser's actions were legitimate, there is no question about it. He acted within the law, and he merely carried through what the ALP had itself attempted many times before when voting against Supply. No government since 1975 has attempted to remove the power of the Senate to block Supply - it remains a constitutional possibility. Fraser used the law to gain government and the people backed him. Of course some disagree, but we're not in the business of endorsing minority or fringe viewpoints - we have to stick to the facts. Underlining the fact that Whitlam's government was unpopular gives a nutshell context to Joh's actions, and here I make the point that the Constitution was swiftly changed (with, of course, the backing of the people) to prevent an easy recurrence of Joph's appointment of Field. --Pete 08:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We may not be in the business of endorsing minority or fringe viewpoints, but nor are we in the business of dismissing them. There exists a significant minority viewpoint that the Senate ought never to block supply. The Democrats were an expression of that sentiment; they were founded on the explicit promise never to block supply, and immediately gained the support of more than 10% of the electorate. Slac's point seems to be that we shouldn't be dismissing that minority view.

But there is also a significant minority that believes unpopular governments have lost their legitimacy and ought to resign immediately. That view is probably held by more people than the first view, and yet Slac seems perfectly comfortable dismissing it.

I'm saying let's stop worrying about the subtext, and just look at what the article is actually saying. Neither version of the sentence says anything about the legitimacy of either side's actions. The reader will draw conclusions from the facts, according to her views. And that's how WP is meant to work.

Zsero 19:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of this Article

The following criticisms were posted on my talk page after I reverted a change (see history around 14 march 2007). I have copied them here for discussion, can others please comment. Rimmeraj 03:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I. You can't defame the dead in Australia. 2. Truth and public interest now constitute a defence anyway. 3. I was a member of the Queensland press gallery for part of the Joh years. After I left Queensland, I interviewed Joh repeatedly either on his silent number in the Executive Building or at Bethany. Joh was given to both porkies and wild claims. EG; He once told me (on tape) that the ALP were linked to the "African National Council [sic]" who had been in Queensland buying tyres for necklacing! 4. Hundreds of Queenslanders can testify to being bashed by police during the civil liberties, anti vietnam war and street march demonstrations. Many of them now work as barristers, professors, journalists and very senior public servants. 5. This sanitising of history confirms my prejudices about the Wiki as a source of information. I wonder if Adolph Hitler had a wiki entry in 1933, whether he would have been described as a kindly vegetarian who liked dogs!

Oh yes I forgot. Wayne Goss' government revealed I was one of the many with a Special branch file. Maybe that's why I got a police tail after I questioned Terry Lewis' (subsequently a convicted felon) links with organised crime.

History is most defintely not bunk!

I wouldn't dispute a word of this. But verifiability is what matters. And Mein Kampf had been published in 1933. Slac speak up! 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgetting History

The further editing of the media section re-affirms my concerns about the Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. Take the use of the term "violent protest". This may imply that violence came from both the protestors and the police. There are hundreds of witnesses available in Brisbane who know that the police were mainly responsible. Indeed, since "protest" and "protestor" are similar, a lazy reader might deduce that it was really the protestors who were responsible for the violence.

The story about Premier Beattie being among demonstrators attacked by police has been widely reported in the Queensland Media. (see http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_in_time/Transcripts/s608221.htm)

Joh's boast about the day of the political street march being over was on the front page of the Courier Mail.

One of the problems with the Wikipedia is amateur editors who don't bother to fact check before they eliminate information!!

A much more serious problem with Wikipedia is editors who don't provide documentation. Provide documentation and it won't be removed. Online documentation is preferred, but other forms (references to books or newspapers which can be checked, at least in theory) is OK too. Rocksong 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey mate I was there! I know its not the same as re-constructing history on the net, but I wasn't the only person to see it unfold. ACIJ

(I'm assuming ACIJ is the ex Queensland press gallery person who wrote above). Then here's what I suggest: create a web page or blog, identifying yourself as far as you're comfortable with, and write your Joh recollections there, without any fear of other people editing your text. Then Wikipedia can cite and quote it, and the reader knows exactly where the information is coming from. Rocksong 11:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

User:Skyring says '"Popular culture" sections are frowned upon'. I'd like to know, frowned on by whom? What's your evidence that anyone besides you frowns on them, and in any case why should I care? Zsero 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They're discouraged in the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. I've already argued against the popular culture in the section #Joh album above (when I went by the name Rocksong) - when a very well known figure is mentioned in a song by a not-so-well-known band, that's not notable, in my opinion. Peter Ballard 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a co-operative effort and we should all care about guidelines and principles generated by consensus. Of course WP:IAR provides an outlet if there is a good reason to ignore a rule, but in this case, no. If Joh had launched legal action or given speeches denouncing the songs, then they might be worthy of inclusion. --Pete 00:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with the above opinions. Pop culture and trivia sections generally contribute nothing to an article, particularly one where politics is involved. As it is, two unknown bands making a quick buck by criticising a well-known figure of the day certainly doesn't rate a mention in the article. Also Zsero, the reason you should care is because Wikipedia is run on the basis of group consensus in editing. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean the rest of the editors share it. 82.69.28.164 14:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture sections are a great linking tool for articles, and help with fitting an individual into the pop culture of the time (ie gauging popularity/notoriety). That said, I doubt there is much cause for one in this case. Rotovia (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bjelke-Petersen vs. Bjelke Petersen

According to his aunt's bio, ther is no hyphen in the last name. Ursasapien (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you worry about that. Read it again, it doesn't say what you think it does. -- Zsero 05:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The most reliable sources I can think of are government sites. Googling at .gov.au sites has him (and Flo) nearly unanimously with a hyphen. Including his funeral service here -- Peter Ballard 05:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This ought to be the definitive proof, if one were ever needed. But no proof is needed; it has never been suggested, by anybody, that his name had no hyphen. Even the source Ursasapien relied on actually says the exact opposite. -- Zsero 05:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not unknown for hyphens to be inconsistent across family members - I use a hyphen in my surname but others in my family don't, to the point that both versions can appear on the same form or someone will assume the spelling is the same for everyone. Timrollpickering 12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redundant quote in "Joh's Corruption Trial"

The phrase

Crown Solicitor Conrad Lohe not only recommended dismissing the claim, but said Sir Joh was "fortunate" not to have faced a second trial

appears twice in the section "Joh's Corruption Trial" and seems to take on two meanings. I don't know enough about the context of the article to fix it, at least not right now. --Lightnin Boltz (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Water-powered car

I read in an article in the paper about Petersen's prototype hydrogen/water-powered car. Is there any more info on this that should be included in the article, as it seems pretty revolutionary. 220.245.156.90 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)