Talk:Edmund Barton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Edmund Barton was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
November 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject British Empire  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 
WikiProject Australia / Law / Politics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Edmund Barton is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.

A mason?[edit]

[SOME MATERIAL LOST FROM HERE ...] that's ridiculous. the fact he was a mason as sourced here [1] should be known widely in his bio. to call it "link-spam" is almost criminal. Rcm 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's rather a bit of hyperbole. You were systematically adding the same text to successive pages in often irrelevant areas with an external link. I took this to be spam. Please integrate the reference with the article, rather than just tacking it on the end.--cj | talk 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Racist?[edit]

Would Barton be considered a racist in todays terms? It seems he made quite a number of racist or "racialistic" speaches, namely the need to " secure the future of our fair country against the tide of inferior and unequal asians arriving from the north".AQjosh 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Off course he's a racist, calling another race inferior automatically qualify him as suchCanpark 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for that quote. Of course Barton supported White Australia, as did virtually everyone in Australia at that time, but that language seems rather more crude than I would expect from Barton. Plus there was no "tide of asians arriving from the north" in 1901. All the colonies had banned Asian immigration years before. The immediate target of the 1901 legislation was the Kanakas in Queensland, not the Chinese. Adam 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source, the Parliament Education Office site reproducing the Hansard. The quote is accurate. Contrast with Deakin who argues against Asian immigration on a protectionist basis. Barton does however take a narrower line than Watson and others who were pushing for a complete ban on all "coloured" migrants. --bainer (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Protectionists, Free Trade Party, and the Labour Party all supported a white australia as was the social norm at the time. Timeshift 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious it was a social norm at the time, for the elected prime minister to be racist evinces that. However, it doesn't change it from being racist. There are forms of racism that are social norms now. You can qualify it by mentioning that racism was the norm at the time, if that makes it sound less pejorative to you. See the wikipedia article Racism for discussion of its meanings. --- and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I 100% agree that it's still racism. I never said it wasn't. Just pointing out virtually every single person you would have known if you lived back then were extreme racists by today's standards. Timeshift 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet?[edit]

'Bold textwho was in sir edmund barton's cabinet???

As far as I can recall, his cabinet consisted mostly of the former Premiers (except the Tasmanian Premier) plus O'Connor and Deakin.Doktor Waterhouse 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

White Australia Policy[edit]

"This was the price of the Labor Party's support for the government." The reason I deleted the sentence is that it implies (depending which way you read it) that either the ALP or Barton didn't want WAP but accepted it against their wishes in return for forming government. Since they both wanted WAP, there was no "price" to either of them. That is why I think the sentence should be deleted. Peter Ballard 07:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A reference has now been added[2] but all that says is that Barton enacted WAP, not that ALP demanded it, nor that Barton didn't want it. Peter Ballard 07:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review/GA nomination[edit]

Comments for Peer Review/GA nom welcome. Timeshift 09:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination[edit]

It's clear that a lot of work has gone into this article, but the result is rather uneven, in that there is too much about the "Campaign for federation" and not enough about Barton's "Judicial career".

I found that the Campaign for federation section had so much fine detail that it became like a story, with this happening then that, and did not read like an encyclopedia article at all. I suggest that this section be cut back a lot. On the other hand the Judicial career section is very brief, and it would be good to see this expanded, giving coverage to some important cases that Barton dealt with etc. These revisions would help to better balance the article.

I'm putting this article on hold as it is close to GA status. However, the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing. -- Johnfos 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the information John. I'll leave this one open to the community. Timeshift 08:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Timeshift. Seven days have passed and I have to let you know that your GA nomination has not been successful. I hope the article can be improved through peer review and that you may consider re-submitting it for GA later. regards, Johnfos 06:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Family[edit]

How come it doesnt have the death dates of some of Bartons children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.66.104 (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to lead of article[edit]

As the first Prime Minister of Australia, Barton has become something of a national icon, and is remembered for his statement that "For the first time, we have a nation for a continent, and a continent for a nation."

Today, Australians are much less inclined to remember his other well known statement at the time, "I do not think that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality."

The second paragraph is POV/OR especially for the lead so I removed it, but somehow the remover thinks that if the second sentence can't be there, then the first sentence can't be either. Why? It's now a very empty lead and there is nothing wrong with the first sentence. I have no qualms placing the second sentence further down. Timeshift (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Image caption[edit]

One of the image captions reads: Sir Edmund, aged 65 in 1904

This doesn't add up, but looking at the image itself, I'm not sure whether the mistake is that it should say 1914 instead of 1904, or if it should say 55 instead of 65. Anyone know which is correct? Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this the photo was taken in January 1914. He was born on 18 January 1849 so in the photo he is either 64 or 65. I've amended the caption accordingly. Melburnian (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Immigration speech[edit]

In case anyone's interested in a 1907 speech attributed to Edmund Barton ("we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself to us..." etc etc) which appears now and again, you can read more about it here. Apparently it is actually a quote from Theodore Roosevelt in 1913, first quoted in the New York Times the day after Roosevelt's death - references to America in the popular internet version have been altered to refer to Australia. It was mentioned in this article but an editor has decided that a quote popularly attributed to Edmund Barton has nothing whatsoever to do with subject of an article about Edmund Barton. I'll not bother to reinstate it because it'll just get eradicated again, but I though this small point of historical interest might be of use to someone. Cnbrb (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You note that a hoax has been identified that seems to have been perpetrated in single email. Unless the hoax has been widely successful - and I for one hadn't come across it - why should WP bother with it? Wikiain (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I just encountered the same hoax on Facebook. So almost nine months later, it is still going around. I don't know if that counts as "widely successful", but it certainly has had a certain degree of success. SJK (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmund Barton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)