Talk:Andrew Fisher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Andrew Fisher has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
September 17, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Good Article Candidate Review[edit]


I've now completed the good article review of this article and determined that it meets all of the Good Article Criteria, and as such I am passing it.

It is well written, well referenced, and you've clearly taken on board the comments in your peer review with regards to this. All images are used correctly in line with Wikipedia policy. The article is stable and written from a Neutral Point of View. I'm particularly happy that this article can be promoted - it's an important subject in Australia's history and the editors of this article should be proud.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Pursey Talk | Contribs 10:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Timeshift 10:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I made a series of edits on 8 October, which were reverted wholesale by Timeshift with some odd accusation of “pushing my agenda”. My edits included changing the spelling of "Labour" to "Labor" - I acknowledge I was wrong on that score. But that still leaves the other edits. I’d like to explain these here for general discussion, with a view to having them reinserted. All comments are welcome.

(a) I changed "When Watson retired in 1907" to "When Watson resigned in 1907", because he did in fact resign the leadership, mainly due to concerns over his wife's health.

(b) I changed "Governor General Dudley" to "the Governor-General Lord Dudley". We don’t refer to our G-G’s as "Governor General Smith", and even if we did, the title "Governor-General" requires a hyphen in Australian usage (see Governor-General of Australia).

(c) "Fisher carried out many reforms in defence, constitutional matters, finance, transport and communications, and social security, achieving the vast majority of his aims in his first government, including such specifics as establishing old-age and invalid pensions, a maternity allowance and workers compensation, issuing Australia's first paper currency, forming the Royal Australian Navy, the commencement of construction for the Trans-Australian Railway, founding Canberra and establishing the government-owned Commonwealth Bank".

This is an exceedingly long and unwieldy sentence. I split it by "... in his first government. These included ...".

(d) "Fisher wanted additional Commonwealth power in additional areas."

I changed the second “additional” to “some”.

(e) "Both were defeated with 61 percent voting 'No'. An additional six questions were asked at the 1913 referendum, on Trade and Commerce, Corporations, Industrial Matters, Trusts, Monopolies, and Railway Disputes. All six were defeated with around 51 percent voting 'No'".

Both times the expression “per cent” was misspelled as “percent”, so I changed it.

(f) "At the 1910 election, Labor gained seventeen additional seats to hold a total of forty-three of the seventy-five House of Representative seats, and all eighteen Senate seats up for election to hold a total of twenty-two out of thirty-six seats, giving Fisher control of both Houses and formed Australia's first majority government, and the world's first Labour Party majority government."

I changed this to: "At the 1910 election, Labor gained seventeen additional seats to hold a total of forty-three of the seventy-five House of Representative seats, and all eighteen Senate seats up for election to hold a total of twenty-two out of thirty-six seats. This gave Labour control of both Houses and enabled Fisher to form Australia's first majority government, and the world's first Labour Party majority government". My reasons were:
  • the original sentence was far too long and unwieldy
  • it wasn’t Fisher who gained control of both houses, but the Labour Party government that he led
  • the phrase " ... giving Fisher control of both Houses and formed Australia's first majority government ..." is ungrammatical.

(g) "... engineered a double dissolution election in an attempt to gain control of both Houses".

I changed this to " ... recommended to the new Governor-General Sir Ronald Munro-Ferguson that both houses of the parliament be dissolved and elections called - this was Australia's first double dissolution election, and the only one until the 1951 election". My reasons were:
  • “engineer a double dissolution” might be found in a source, but it’s an inappropriate expression. A double dissolution can only occur if the opposition twice blocks legislation in the Senate. Then the Prime Minister can ask the G-G for a double dissolution. But the G-G does not have to agree, and there are precedents for him not agreeing (see Chris Watson). So, for a PM to “engineer” a double dissolution, he has to have not only the opposition on side (a contradiction in terms), but also the surety that the G-G will accede to his request (and there is no such surety).
  • The fact that it was no longer Lord Dudley but Munro-Ferguson in the vice-regal chair is worth mentioning.
  • The fact that it was the historic first double dissolution (and the only one until 1951) is well worth mentioning.

(h) I removed the reference to Keith Murdoch being the father of Rupert Murdoch. Rupert wasn’t even born till 1931 and is completely irrelevant to this article. If anyone clicks on Keith Murdoch’s link, they’ll discover he was Rupert’s father. That’s what links are for.

(j) France did not "award" Fisher the Legion d’Honneur. They wanted to, and sounded him out, but he declined the honour. No award was ever made.

Over. -- JackofOz 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now made most of the above edits, plus a new one about the suburb of Fisher, ACT. -- JackofOz 10:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'in either house'[edit]

Do the appendages ive added recently sound right? The clarification needs to be made that not only did they gain a majority in the lower, a first for any federal party, they also gained a majority in the upper for the first time. Timeshift 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There may be bicameral legislatures where a government can be formed in either house, although I can't say I've ever heard of one and I can't see how government would be decided if Party A controls one house but Party B controls the other. In Westminster parliaments, government is formed solely in the lower house, and how the competing parties fare in the upper house is irrelevant. Which is why, even if an Australian government is completely outnumbered in the Senate, there is still a "Leader of the Government in the Senate". This position could be described as "the leader in the Senate of the party that has formed government in the House of Representatives". It’s more unwieldy, but maybe it could be more accurately expressed as: Fisher's second Prime Ministership in 1910 saw Australia's first majority government, the world's first Labour Party majority government, and the first time any Labour Party in the world had gained control of both houses of a bicameral legislature. -- JackofOz 21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
What does a majority being formed for the first time in the Senate, my issue, have to do with forming government? You don't need to be condescending, i'm well aware of how our parliament works. Timeshift 02:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Q. What does a majority being formed for the first time in the Senate ... have to do with forming government?
A. You might well ask, Timeshift, but you'd better ask yourself because that's where this originated.
  • The expression "the world's first Labour Party majority government" is fine.
  • And the expression "the world's first Labour Party majority in either house" is also fine. This expression wouldn't necessarily imply that Labour formed government, because for all the casual reader knows, it may have been the Senate, and only the Senate, that they controlled. But it's still an accurate statement in itself. This may be what you intended to have the article read, but I'm guessing here because that's not how you actually edited it.
  • What your edit did result in was the expression "the world's first Labour Party majority government in either house". This suggests that whenever a party has control of either house, it wins government - which is wrong for the reasons I outlined above. I took the trouble to explain that, because I don't know you from a bar of soap and I have no knowledge of what your level of knowledge of these matters is. And you did ask for comments, after all. If you misinterpreted my generosity of spirit as condescension, I feel very sorry for you.
I've reconsidered my suggested version above and I still think it's the most accurate formulation because it acknowledges that not all legislatures are bicameral, and the statement wouldn't have any relevance to those that are not. But it's still not the whole story, of course. Fisher's second Prime Ministership in 1910 saw:
  • Australia's first majority government
  • the world's first Labour Party majority government
  • the first time the Labour Party had a majority in any house of any parliament in the world - which of itself would not necessarily mean it won government, but in this particular case it did win government because it was ...
  • the first time the Labour Party had control of both houses of any bicameral parliament.
Side discussion hidden
If you have any further questions, you have only to ask. But please leave aside the incivility, it reflects very badly on you, Timeshift. -- JackofOz 12:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Saying theres no need to be condescending is incivil? Whatever. Timeshift 15:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the article in accordance with the above. I'll respond on your talk page about the incivility. -- JackofOz 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If condescending is incivil, I apologise to your glass jaw. Timeshift 10:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You're only digging your grave deeper, Timeshift. This supports what I've been saying about your propensity for incivility. The first step on the road to recovery is acceptance of the fact that you have a serious problem. -- JackofOz 12:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Dr Phil. Right from the start I have never accepted your condescending attitude toward me. You, Brendan, and Prester are the three I clash with for the various reasons, which is a small number compared to those who far outnumber 3 of whom I converse with on and off wiki, both Labor and Liberal, in a completely opposite manner. I don't need lectures from you. Timeshift 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to talk about "right from the start", we should talk about your accusation that I was "pushing my agenda". That was the first time there was ever any communication between us, albeit in an edit summary, but nonetheless for my eyes in particular. We should talk about your accusation that I was "finding holes that aren't there". We should talk about your accusation that I was "making manipulative edits". We should talk about your accusation that I am "thick as a brick". We should talk about your accusation that I am a sockpuppet of some user I've never heard of - or a sockpuppet of anyone for that matter. I have challenged you to produce any evidence for these statements, and I do so again now. I'm confident that you'll have nothing to say because, when challenged about accusations for which there is zero evidence, you remain silent. But by all means, whatever ammunition you may think you have, bring it on.
On one occasion I was factually wrong (Labor/Labour), and I quickly acknowledged it and apologised. On one occasion I inadvertently removed an image, and when made aware of it, I quickly acknowledged it and apologised. Is there anything else?
Right from the start of our interaction on 9 October, you have consistently preferred to deal with me on a negative personal basis. "Pushing my agenda" - I still don't know what my agenda might be. (Your reference to "both Labor and Liberal" above suggests this might have something to do with political allegiances. For the record, not that it's anyone's business but mine, I have never belonged to any political party, and how I vote is decided on the issues each election.) I don't have a huge problem with you forming an instant dislike of me - it happens to all of us. And I don't have a huge problem with you thinking I'm condescending; I don't believe I am, but you're entitled to your opinion. But what you're not entitled to do is to deal with me (and other users) in the way you do. Let's take a look at this very thread: it started with you asking for comments on edits you'd made. I provided comments in good faith because (a) nobody else seemed to be coming to the party and (b) I always like to think that bygones can be bygones, no matter what has happened previously or no matter who was at fault. Maybe I'm naive, but that's the way I am. The edits I have since made to the article remain unchallenged by you or anyone else. Did I get any acknowledgement that I came up with the goods that you were seeking? No. Was that a polite or decent way to act? No. I don't hang around waiting for acknowledgments, but I certainly don't expect to be criticised for condescension. You found the time and energy to make that criticism, but no time or energy to acknowledge the good work I had done at your request. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
You may remember it was I who approached you back here in a spirit of conciliation, simply to alert you the Labor/Labour spelling problem was continuing. Rather than any thanks for my effort, I got a snide response that was open to interpetation as including me in a class of users who are "ignorant". Ignorance is a necessary step before enlightenment, but apparently as far as you're concerned, once ignorant, always ignorant. The human race is in big trouble if that's the case.
Criticise my edits on their substance as strongly and viciously as you like - I'm a big boy now and I can survive strong criticism of my words, and if I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it, as I have. Dislike me personally (not that you've ever met me) as much as you like and on whatever weird basis you think might be relevant, but it's the mark of a mature person that they can separate personal feelings from discussions about encyclopedia content. As for personal accusations, insinuations, innuendos, outright hostility, and whatever else you have, you can see the amount of trouble it causes. So, just don't resort to it. Find another way of getting rid of your frustrations.
I hesitate to bring this to your attention (the page was not of my creation and I’m still a little embarrassed by it), but Wikipedia:What would Jack do? might interest you. Do you still think I'm a sockpuppet?
Now, I'll thank you to remove my (mis-spelled) user name from your silly little list on your user page, or I'll take this further. And an apology would be nice too, but I'm not holding my breath. -- JackofOz 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Constituency in infobox[edit]

10 points to anyone who can guess the issue especially on this PM page? Timeshift (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Labour? I don't think so, in Australia.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


"the first time the Labour Party had controlled any house of a legislature; and the first time it controlled both houses of a bicameral legislature"

What does this mean exactly? A Labour Party or the ALP? Any house being state+federal or overseas? SA elected an ALP majority lower house on 2 April 1910, 11 days before the 1910 election. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

File:StateLibQld 1 100112.jpg - young Fisher in article[edit]

Does anyone know why the image has disappeared? Timeshift (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


This article has too many images for the amount of text and messes up the layout. Would anyone care to invest a bit of time fixing it up, one way or another? Timeshift (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Fisher a Georgist?[edit]

I'm a bit dubious about finding a claim that Fisher was Georgist in the first sentence of the lede, when it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Certainly it's not an alternative to the previous word "Australian". Did he declare himself to be a Georgist or is the citation provided stating that his views were compatible with Georgist or what? An quick online scan doesn't show the term Georgist being used for him during his lifetime but only recently. I think before putting Georgist in the lede, there needs to be some content elsewhere in the article that discusses the matter more fully in relation to policies he espoused or implemented. Kerry (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)