Talk:Joh Bjelke-Petersen/Archive 1

Place of birth

Was he born in Waipukurau? Most Who's Who entire give his place of birth as Dannevirke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.55.44 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2004 (UTC)

Patrick Field

The previous version referred to Joh breaking convention by appointing an Independent Senator. In point of fact, Field was a member of the ALP when appointed and in the December 1975 federal election was placed on the Labor Senate ballot.

Joh had rejected Labor's nominee Mal Colston, citing doubts about his integrity, and asked for a list of three names from which to choose the replacement. Labor refused to provide any names other than Colston, and so Joh selected Field, a man with impeccable Labor credentials, but strongly anti-Whitlam.

The only convention cited by any authority is that a casual Senate vacancy should be filled by a member of the same party. In the 1962 case, "Sir Frank Nicklin had done a similar thing in the sixties by using coalition numbers to reject the ALP's first choice" (Hugh Lunn, "Joh", University of Queensland Press, 1978, p216). Joh went to some pains to ensure that Field was a longstanding ALP member holding a current party membership and with a long union history behind him, he having been re-elected to the presidency of a union some months earlier. At the time of his nomination on 3 September 1975, Joh made sure that Field had his Labor membership card in his pocket and quoted the number and branch of issue in Parliament. Skyring 11:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. While the 1962 case did represent a precedent, it seems that it was very much the exception rather than the rule. In other words, I think that counts as a "convention". Certainly Labor thought so - and, ultimately, this view was endorsed by the success of the later constitutional referendum. And while Field may have been a Labor Party member, he was chosen specifically because he opposed Whitlam, so for all intents and purposes, given the situation he may as well have been a National Party member. --Robert Merkel 22:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point at issue as to what, precisely, was the convention at the time is that it was a convention to appoint a member of the same party as the deceased or resigned Senator, not that the State Parliament be bound to choose the nomination of the party. The Senate unanimously passed a resolution when NSW Premier Tom Lewis appointed Cleaver Bunton to the effect that the replacement should be of the same party. (Gavin Souter, "Acts of Parliament", Melbourne University Press, 1988, p529). I think it is safe to say that this resolution represents a clear statement of whatever convention the entire Senate thought should apply to filling casual vacancies, and while I do not have the text of that resolution before me, Souter does not mention anything about party nominations, merely party membership.

And if you look at the text of the 1977 amendment of s15, a remarkably ugly slab of legalese set in the middle of an otherwise elegantly worded Constitution, you will note that it likewise says nothing about party nominations. It may be assumed that this widely supported amendment represented the will of the people as well as being the setting down of whatever convention was seen at the time as applying to Senate casual vacancies. It would be instructive to look at the Hansard debates of the time.

The point I am making here is that if you apply the text of the 1977 amendment to Patrick Field, you will see that he would have been covered by it, as he was a member of the ALP during the entire period of his appointment and sitting.

As regards to section 15, which I agree is remarkably ugly, you'll note the section that reads:

Where--

(a) in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, a member of a particular political party is chosen or appointed to hold the place of a senator whose place had become vacant; and

(b) before taking his seat he ceases to be a member of that party (otherwise than by reason of the party having ceased to exist),

he shall be deemed not to have been so chosen or appointed and the vacancy shall be again notified in accordance with section twenty-one of this Constitution.

So under this rule, Whitlam could have arranged to have Field expelled, and the appointment would have automatically lapsed. Therefore, Joh would have had no option to appoint Labor's preferred nominee if he were to appoint anyone. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping a state parliament repeatedly nominating donkey candidates, or refusing to nominate a candidate at all, though.

Whitlam could have done any number of things. But he didn't. Field remained a member of the ALP and was therefore a valid choice under the Senate casual vacancy convention as expressed in the new s15. And yes, you are correct, State Parliaments don't have to nominate replacements. Odgers has something useful to say on this. Skyring 05:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You say he might as well have been a member of the National Party, but this is immaterial, even if true. Field was a member of the ALP and therefore no convention was broken. That is why Joh went to such lengths to ensure that Field's long and respectable Labor party membership was beyond dispute, even making sure that on the day of his selection by State Parliament, Field had his current ALP membership card tucked into his coat pocket. (Hugh Lunn, "Joh", University of Queensland Press, 1978, p222). If Joh had wanted to break with convention, he would have merely appointed a Country Party member to fill the vacancy.

But if you have a pre-Field statement of the convention, I should be very glad to hear it. Crisp, in a 1962 edition of "Representative Government of Australia" discusses Senate casual vacancies without mentioning any convention at all, noting one prominent case, that of Reade and Earle, where both party and conscription stance were reversed. Skyring 00:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but this is the problem. As I understood it, the usual practice was to appoint the preferred nominee of the party who had lost a Senator, not merely any random party member. I find your examples interesting but not persuasive yet. If you're going to answer this question properly, we'd really need to look at *all* the casual vacancies filled by a state government controlled by the other party than the retiring/deceased Senator from 1901 until Field's appointment and see what the practice was. --Robert Merkel 04:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course State Parliaments usually appointed the nominee of the party supplying the vacancy. The question is whether there was a recognised convention in 1975 that they do so. I have not found any source that states that this was the case. The recognised convention was (and is) that replacement Senators be from the same party and of course this was done to preserve the expressed wishes of the voters. However it was then and remains now a matter of simple practicality that a State Parliament is not obliged to appoint a replacement Senator if the nominee is not acceptable. The references I have found as to what the recognised convention was at the time indicate that Tom Lewis breached the convention by appointing an Independent, but that Joh did not, because Field was of the same party. In the same way that Joh made sure that his paperwork was impeccable in the Gair Affair, he did the same with Field, taking pains to check that Field's credentials as a Labor man were beyond reproach. The "black-letter" law of the Constitution gave him the power to appoint anyone he wanted to fill the vacancy, but he was very careful in his choice. If one asks why did he do this, the only answer that makes sense is that he wished to comply with the accepted convention. In "letter" if not spirit. Skyring 05:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parliamentary report

Skyring, have a look at this Parliamentary library report, and specifically the section on the Field affair. Interestingly, it lists a 1987 case where the deadlock situation I mentioned above actually happened; the Tasmanian government refused to appoint the Labor nominee, and the position remained unfilled. However, it does say that the convention did "break down" twice in 1975; and surely appointing somebody who would vote to bring down the government of his own nominal party, and install the Opposition into government, is breaking the "spirit" of the convention, if not the "letter". --Robert Merkel 05:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Parliamentary library is a treasure trove of such information. They even provide free copies of their periodic topical collections, such as the texts of Senate Occasional Lectures. I have a stack of them beside me as I speak. The key words in your reference are "all parties and the State Parliaments had adopted the practice of filling the casual vacancy with a member of the same political party as the resigned or deceased Senator". Although this is equated to a convention and is said to have broken down, clearly if Field remained a member of the ALP then the convention was not broken, even in its post 1977 form. It seems to be a widely-accepted myth that Field was expelled by the ALP, but I can find no definitive statement that this was so, and it seems to me that if Field was even a nominal ALP candidate for the December 1975 election, then he must have remained a member between September and December.

As with many things about Whitlam and the Dismissal, myths have grown up, presumably as an attempt to portray Whitlam as the victim of a vicious campaign rather than an unwitting architect of his own destruction. The recently-released Cabinet papers for 1974 reveal that he made some significant mistakes and ignored repeated warnings from within and without his government that he was heading for trouble. The accepted myth for the Field affair seems to be that Joh ignored the ALP's nominee in favour of an independent and therefore broke convention. It seems to be easy to believe this, especially considering that Joh was a bit of a bastard, but the facts don't bear it out. Joh rejected Colston on grounds of integrity, the ALP refused to nominate somebody acceptable to Joh, so Joh picked a staunch Labor man as a replacement. Not with the best of faith, to be sure, but certainly in line with the existing convention. Skyring 05:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. It's not disputed that the Field appointment was constitutionally acceptable in 1975. Post-1977, it probably would have resulted in an empty Senate seat. It is also clear that this was a variation in the usual practice followed by state governments of both parties, if not unprecedented, and a very clear deviation from the intent of the usual practice. It would be remiss of the article not to point out how unusual it was. I'll try an alternative wording tomorrow morning and see if you can find it acceptable. --Robert Merkel 07:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taking that broad hint, I've had another go. I'm not happy about the perception given that Joh was a key player in the 1975 Dismissal, because so far as I can see he would have had no knowledge of Fraser's plans (though I am sure that he would have thoroughly approved). It was just another chance to score a political victory over opponents who thought they knew the rules but didn't. Skyring 21:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bjelkemander

This is a topic which could probably benefit from an article all its own. The system of giving rural areas more electorates than the number of voters would indicate was actually a scandal of the previous long-serving Labor administration. In the 1956 election, the ALP won its seats with an average of 7000 votes each, against 9900 for the Country Party and a massive 23800 for the Liberals. The greatest disparity was between the seats of Mount Gravatt with 26307 voters and Charters Towers with 4367.

In 1972, the Country Party reaped the benefit of the same system, with CP seats won with 7000 votes, Liberal with 9600, and Labor 12800. The biggest difference was between Pine Rivers with 16758 voters and Gregory with 6273. (of course, given the continued expansion of the Brisbane metropolitan area, these large figures for Mount Gravatt in 1956 and Pine Rivers in 1972 are reflective of the suburban sprawl moving into previously rural areas before new and fairer boundaries cound be drawn up. Nevertheless, the disparity is there.)

The situation in 1972 of Joh governing on a 20% vote is bizarre but true. Typically the Country Party would win seats with a small margin, while the Liberals and especially the Labor Party would win their fewer seats with greater margins, reflecting the fact that Liberal and Labor voters tended to live in identifiable "clumps". The ALP was also hamstrung by the many DLP voters who put the Coalition ahead of Labor, so there was 7.7% of the vote that flowed away from the ALP.

Having said that, even if in 1972 the seats had been determined by a proportional representation system, the results would have been ALP 39, L/CP 36, DLP 5 and Independents two, presumably resulting in a Liberal Premier governing with the support of the DLP.

All of these figures are readily available from historical sources, but it must be said that Hugh Lunn's excellent biography of Joh is by far the best and fairest (and most colourful) source. He devotes a whole chapter to the Bjelkemander. In contrast, the "official" biography produced at the height of Joh's powers and sold in huge numbers to supporters, is a load of steaming tripe with barely the slightest blush of criticism of The Great Man. I don't think it mentions Patrick Field at all! It certainly doesn't mention the fifteen years Joh spent living alone in a cow bail, something that affords Lunn (and his readers) endless pleasure. Skyring 21:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've written a quick article on the infamous Bjelkemander, primarily to back up my claim that it was a more democratic revision of the Labor system preceding it. It is interesting to note that Bjelke-Petersen spoke out strongly against the Labor scheme on its introduction, using language which could equally well be applied to his own 1972 changes. I'm not going to pretend that it's a particularly good article, and interested editors are invited to help beat it into some sort of professional shape. Skyring 23:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Success

"some people consider him to be one of the most successful politicians in Australian history."

I intend to rv this. I can't think of any criteria of political success that doesn't include Joh. Love him or hate him, and I realise that views are polarised, the FACT is that he governed Queensland for two decades, he ran the place pretty much as he wanted despite often strenuous opposition, and he won election after election. For a politician, that's success, regardless of what side of the political fence they are on.

Joh was never acquitted

The first jury was hung, and IIRC the judge declares a mistrial in those circumstances. The prosecutor decided not to attempt to try him twice, which is a prosecutor's perogrative. I happen to find the view of the Queensland Crown Solicitor in 2003 on Joh's compensation claim quite appropriate:

"One can say with some justification that Sir Joh was fortunate that the Special Prosecutor decided not to put Sir Joh on trial a second time," [1].

--Robert Merkel 12:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that opinion doesn't count. Do you have a source for your "mistrial" comment? I'm not saying you're wrong, but in a quick Google I couldn't find anything definitive to support a mistrial verdict. Or an acquittal, for that matter. I think you're right, because if he was acquitted, then he couldn't be tred for the same thing again, but still I think we need a checkable source. The only ones I could find that seemed to be certain of their facts came from one extreme of politics or the other! Pete 17:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The quotation was reflecting my personal views of the bloke, not the substantive issue here. Sorry about that.

As to the substantive point, as this page explains, if the jury is hung in any criminal case the judge orders a retrial. The prosecution can then decide to drop the case, which is what happened here. --Robert Merkel 23:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert! Pete 23:28, 3 Apr 2005 (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 ([2]). 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)

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)

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) It would be, if it wasn't a scam, just like his investment in "an offshore quack who claimed to cure cancer with orange pips or apricot kernels or something similar" http://www.apo.org.au/webboard/comment_results.chtml?filename_num=12218 - both of which were funded by the taxpayer. What a great man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.251.241 (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.7.137 (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it should actually be "due to the malapportionment" as the context is rural voters being disproportionally represented compared to urban ones. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

reverting to last well cited version

I reverted this article back to the last well cited version after it had been reverted back to nearly 100 edits ago. That older version was almost completely uncited and contained numerous edits that were nothing more then a hate agenda and with completely false and even slanderous statements. I would suggest that other editors discuss the facts here in the discussion area so the article can be properly cited and encyclopedic in nature, The tag placed in November 2007 calls for Unsourced material to be removed, most of which has been done because it was unfactual and unencyclopedic. The edits I have added have all been cited in an effort to make the article encyclopedic in nature. If other editors feel some of those edits are not correct, then post me here and lets discuss it, but reverting to a very old uncited version that smacks of hate, inuendo, uncited claims, etc is completely unencyclopedicVivaldi27 (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Vivaldi27 (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The edits I reversed last night, after consulting with other editors and asking a checkuser to investigate a perceived link to another editor who has been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for blatant disruption, were anything but neutral. The article is pretty bad as it is, but it is factual, and some of the edits introduced blatant errors (eg the 89 seat business) or removed valid content (eg the Koowarta case). Getting rid of bits one doesn't like and trying to interpret anything bad or questionable only in the best light possible is not in the spirit of WP:NPOV. If you have specific concerns, let's discuss them here. Orderinchaos 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ThankYou Orderinchaos, thankyou for your explanation, but the article is most certainly not factual as you state, and if it is, you need to show that through citations which has not been dome. I have a right to remove edits that are not cited or not cited from reliable sources. I madew a mistake on the 89 seats and I quickly corrected that also. The edits I have made are all well cited and encyclopedic in nature. For example, you removed my recent post, In the subsequent by-election, the seat was won by Trevor Perrett representing the Citizen's Electoral Council.

- + Perrett later joined the National Party. now it is factual, cited and encyclopedic in nature, it replaced a edit that was not cited and and just an opnion. Please explain that? Im happy to discuss the article here as much as you want. ButYou are also appearing to force page ownership here. Suggest we involve other editors for further opinons. In the meantime, ill leave your reverse, and go through each edit one by one with you and other editors, kind regardsVivaldi27 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not forcing page ownership of any kind - in fact, looking at the history will demonstrate I had never once edited this article prior to last night, and it wasn't even on my watchlist. However, when I see almost 100 edits from a user that has edited almost no other articles, that seem to be pushing a particular line or agenda, just after we've uncovered an indef-blocked editor operating under numerous socks in similar areas, and when the checkuser comes back "Possible to Likely" that the editing account and the banned account are the same person (white still short of Confirmed), I get somewhat edgy about it. With that many edits it is impossible to genuinely review, and I reviewed enough to convince me there were some very, very serious issues with the edits being made. I don't doubt some of the edits did improve it, but it's impossible to know and too much of a risk to take - edits can always be reinstated on review. Yes, there is some dodgy stuff in the article. But the way to fix that is not to make it a shrine to the bloke. I have fought wanton deification and demonisation on Labor, Liberal, Green and now National articles, and my only goal in doing so is to assist Wikipedia in becoming a reliable source on Australian politics. Orderinchaos 18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ThankYou for your explanation, I dont know about a banned userm but possibly because I come from queensland there is always going to be a match on ip accounts here. With that said, im only to happy to discuss the matter here before making further edits so im not here to disrupt anyone. But the fact remains, the version of the article you reverted to is almost completely uncited and the tag placed there in 2007 says editors have a right to remove uncited material which i have done. as for my edits, if you think any of them are wrong, by all means remove each of those edits with a proper explanation pls instead of just reverting evereything I edited. On any specific edit you remove, im happy to discuss it here one by one. But lets face it, the version you reverted to is a thousand times worse? What do you think?Vivaldi27 (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the checkuser which came back allowed for considerable ambiguity, if I was confident you were a banned user, I would not be discussing with you. I was explaining my reasoning above. Orderinchaos 03:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My first suggestion here Orderinchaos is that we at least keep the article cited, and remove the bulk of the rest which is mostly personal opinions or obviuous hate stuff.Vivaldi27 (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things which were removed were the Koowarta case and the fact the jury foreman was an active National member. Both of those were significant to the story, the former is actually one of the cases any law professor would cite as one of the most important constitutional cases in this country alongside Engineers, Tasmanian Dams, Uniform Taxation cases etc. I'm happy to consider reviewing the content, as I agree the article has its issues, but I intend on using an academic source as the basis. Orderinchaos 03:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

suggested removal

Ok, for example, the following is uncited, and unless it can be cited and valid reason why it should be there it should be removed, (using a tax deduction then allowable to primary producers}, because claiming that one has a tax deduction wen they may not have is unencyclopedic.Vivaldi27 (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Third Opion Needed Here

I feel its best we go to a third opion here. I have made numerous edits to the article which have all been cited and I feel encyclopedic in nature, here is my last version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joh_Bjelke-Petersen&diff=234810877&oldid=234805505, Orderinchaos has reverted all my edits back to wat is the current version which is almost completely uncited and smacks of a what on the surface appears to a be a hate article and unencyclopedic in nature. Is possible both versions need improvement, but the cited version is certainly a major improvement on the mostly uncited version. Opinions plsVivaldi27 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are highly WP:POV and attempt to WP:CENSOR. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vivaldi27's edits certainly reek of censorship whitewashing, e.g. editing away the gerrymander and Joh's corruption trial. Having said that, the original is highly POV too, with all sorts of anti-Joh POV editorial comments, many of them uncited. It needs a thorough going over. The article probably deserves a POV tag until that's done. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think the original is less bad that Vivaldi27's version, so I support the reverts. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty much my opinion as well. (I POV tagged it just now.) Once this WA election is over (which, given our lack of preparedness, is taking up the majority of my editing time at present) I might actually see what I can do with it. His entire period of leadership is covered by the Political Chronicles and that book by Colin A Hughes I mentioned is in two uni libraries which I have access to. Orderinchaos 02:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I quite like the current version; it illuminates the man's nasty authoritarianism in ways which most of the biographies failed to do. It does so by accumulating and contextualising reports of his actions. Hughes pretty much kept his head down while Joh was in power. Instead read Rae Wear's book, Bjelke Petersen. Joh regularly accused his detractors of exactly what he had already done himself. In that sense, it's a little ironic that we should be complaining about lack of objectivity here. The Phantoad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.70.10.55 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I suggest is we go through and slowly remove all the uncited POV, etc. If there is one thing that is obvious, it seems that everybody is letting their own personal opnions get in the way of developing a fair and balanced article. Im happy to work with other Editors, but information on the article needs to be cited. In the meantime, i will remove what I feel is hate, bias, etc that is uncited.Vivaldi27 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove tax deduction Edit

I removed the following edit because it is uncited and no proof of this, also, is it really relevent and encyclopedic....(using a tax deduction then allowable to primary producers) (using a tax deduction then allowable to primary producers)Vivaldi27 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, it makes no difference whether it was the case or not, is not cited and carries an imputation. Orderinchaos 08:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bjelke-Petersen's memoirs

I added a simple edit on his memoirs that fits in well with the article, is encyclopedic and citedVivaldi27 (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on Biographies

I should also like to remind everyone about wikipedia policy here. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space"Vivaldi27 (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although note there is considerable debate about the role of BLP alongside other policies. No policy is absolute and competing considerations apply - take for example this user warning template which treats removing content in certain circumstances as a blockable offence, and our NPOV policy which says balance must be maintained. It's always better to raise things for discussion on the talk page (i.e. here) so that people may discuss it. Uncontroversial things like the tax deduction one you found are okay to simply remove, but be aware your definition of uncontroversial and someone else's may vary. Orderinchaos 08:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Orderinchaos, much appreciated for your reply. This is what im hoping for, for us to work together to build a better argument, thats why Im posting what changes or considerations here in discussion and always happy to work with you on this. Much appreciated and look forward to us both developing a good quality article here.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dean Brothers Slogan - Someone posted the Dean brothers slogan in the article, I think this is silly and irrelevent and should be removedVivaldi27 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not silly and irrelevant at all. Both sites were Heritage buildings, part of the collective memory. Read the current government's EPA website. Joh was aware of opposition to demolition, when he sought a non unionised company to bypass green bans. The Deen Brothers still celebrate the demolitions with photos of Cloudland and the Bellevue. In that context, the slogan appears intentional insult to the Heritage campaigners. This contempt for the values of many Brisbane people was a keynote of the Joh years. johlover2 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the text, it may be more suitable to a new article on the incident - although is likely out of place in a biography on Joh - to put in context, it was something that happened during his term as Premier and was authorised by his Government but may or may not have had anything to do with him personally (in fact, most of that paragraph on development should probably be in a separate article itself, on Bjelke-Petersen Government, much as we have done with Howard. What year did the incident occur btw? Orderinchaos 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Joh ran an authoritarian government where he proudly called the shots. Bjelke Petersen made political alliances with developers and corrupt police. The government which he dominated preached law and order while favouring his allies. He directed the police and legal actions against his opponents in events including the Springboks tour, the Cedar Bay raid, the right to march demonstrations, the Fraser island conservation, the SEQUEB strike, and the Bellevue demolition. He simply did not seem to understand the separation of powers which should exist in a democratic government. These incidents directly reflected his unique style and therefore should be part of his biography. Remember, the National Party was and is not a fascist party. When Joh and his pals lost power, the Nationals reverted to a conventional political operation.

History is documented opinion, not the removal of same. Conventional journalism, which promised balance was relatively powerless in reporting a political leader who openly lied and accused his detractors of what he had already done himself. On rare occasions a prepared interviewer, such as Paul Lyneham, was able to coax him into lying (denying he had a conflict of interest by holding Tarong powerhouse shares) and then expose those lies (by revealing the share register) during a television interview. This interview is till used to teach interviewing technique. However, investigative journalism finally brought Joh unstuck. Joh lied about the existence of brothels and lllegal casinos which were patronised by at least one of his senior ministers. Four Corners was able to expose these lies by filming prostitutes in Brisbane. Outrage at this led directly to the Fitzgerald inquiry. There is much still to be written about Joh. Don't be gulled by his blind supporters! johlover2 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pilots License n business - Added a small cited sentence to his early life about him getting his pilots lcense and some business ventures, I feel this is relevent. "Obtaining a pilot's licence early in his adult life, Joh also started aerial spraying and grass seeding to further speed up pasture development in Queensland".Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, both seem entirely reasonable additions/edits. Orderinchaos 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cedar Bay Raid

Does anyone have references for the 1976 Cedar Bay Raid? Queensland police used a patrol boat to raid an isolated hippy community, looking for marijuana. Police burned their houses down, committing arson which is a much more serious offence than marijuana possession. The inspector put this in his report and Whitrod who wanted to discipline him, kept the file in his safe. This was seen as the beggining of breakdown of the relationship between Whitrod and Joh. Max Hodges, the Police minister, defended Whitrod and was replaced. Whitrod resigned and was replaced by Joh with the known to be corrupt, Terry Lewis. Now all we have to do is reference the above. Anyone willing to help? johlover2 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it in an academic journal, but it's not really appropriate to the Joh article. This sort of stuff really should go in a separate article which I'd suggest should be titled Bjelke-Petersen Government. Orderinchaos 11:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you guys have got it yet. Joh did not tolerate opposition whether it came from students, coalition MPs or cabinet ministers. His extremist, autocratic style mad ehim almost unique in Australian governance. Joh could never be accused of having a significant intellect, but he had strong views and the cunning to impose them on the community. The biography of Joh and his government are one and the same. johlover2 11:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing for me to "get". I'm hardly a supporter of the subject - although I believe everyone in public life should have a fair article on Wikipedia that chronicles their life and acts, and as a 2nd year political science student I come at this from the same academic perspective I take to my outside writing. My only regret is that I have been terribly busy due to the WA election (I'm based in WA) and uni work and haven't had time to look stuff up for this one - I am (as I hope I've demonstrated) happy to look up anything that anyone, whoever they may be, wants to reference in reliable sources on Australian politics and to help format references if people want them included.

But more to the point, this is a biographical article, not one about the government he led, except to the extent that his own personal actions can be isolated from the government he led. It's not at all an ideological position - we're moving towards that with all political biographies of premiers/chief ministers/PMs, be they Labor or Liberal or National. Orderinchaos 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a disagreement about the style and nature of political biographies. Until we get th e cabinet papers from joh's rule, we won't get the details about how much of his nasty government was his alone. But we have a pretty fair idea, given his many public utterances. Like Joh used to say, "If you fly like a crow and you squawk like a crow, you get shot with the crows!"

johlover2 12:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Pergury Trial Correction

Ive corrected the reasons why the pergury trial was not retried as per the citation. The original edit in fact referred to Johs suing the State Government some ten plus years later, interesting to also note that the citation did not even say wat the person had posted and suggest an effort is made to review all the citations here. The pergury trial was not retried due to Johs age as per the citation.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cloudland

Approval for demolitions are given by the city council, not the state government, from wat I can tell, it seems the dean bros demolished it illegally, if so, this is a city council issue which at the time was a Labour Governed City Council. It is furthermore to note, that the council seemed to support the demolition by giving quick approval to the devolopment of Units on the site. It was up to the council to stop the demolition and take action on this. The architectural atrocity that replaced Cloudland can be seen on the Brisbane City Council website. "In what they laughably refer to as "urban renewal", BCC winked at the illegal demolition and rubber-stamped the redevelopment of the site of Australia's finest Art Deco ballroom, which replaced by a $20 million, 125-unit private apartment complex of surpassing ugliness."http://www.milesago.com/venues/cloudland.htm The Brisbane City Council issued the Deen Brothers with a meagre $125 fine for illegal demolition. The Brisbane City Council also prevented signatures being collected after the demolition of Cloudland calling for immediate heritage protection legislation — a Bill that, in 1982, had been promised for seven years by the City Council.http://www.dotlit.qut.edu.au/200302/cloudland3.html As such, what has any of this got to do with johs biography? From wat I can see, None. This is a city council issue and at best should be shifted to the article on the relevent Lord Mayor of the time.Vivaldi27 (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Later Life

I added a small addition about johs business interests in Tasmania and a mention about paying off debts resulting from the pergury trial with citationVivaldi27 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference

I added a reference to confirm the date he became premierVivaldi27 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sunday School Teacher

I added an edit about how after being premier, Joh continued to teach Sunday School, I feel this was important as during that time, for some absurd reason, the opposition made such a big stink about in parlament.Vivaldi27 (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Election for Johs Seat

I add a few verification tags that are needed there as well as a small edit about who won the seat with a reference to that. I would like to see if we can get some verification about the two sentences where I added the tags, but if we cant find anything notable both sentences will eventually have to be removed.Vivaldi27 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All I could find in P.C. was this: "On this occasion Sir Joh’s role was more oblique: he did not appear to endorse any candidate, although he was somewhat supportive of Nationals’ candidate and local shire chairman Warren Truss while at the same time sympathising with the views of Trevor Perre& the Independent candidate representing the conservative-oriented Citizens Electoral Council (CEC)." (Interesting that Truss was the Nationals candidate - I didn't know that!) Orderinchaos 19:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I cant find anything either, so on that basis Im going to remove it as we certainly cannot say he supported a candidate when there is no evidence of him doing so.Vivaldi27 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Letter Bomb

I added a small edit about the letter bomb incidentVivaldi27 (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it got a short section in Political Chronicle: "A most unfortunate and deplorable incident during the election campaign was the posting of a letter bomb to the premier. The device exploded in the mail room of the Executive Building and seriously injured two public servants. It was a cowardly action that was roundly condemned by all political parties. At the time of writing no charges have been laid in relation to the incident." If that text is of any use in improving it, I'll provide the full citation for it. Orderinchaos 19:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, yes if you can add a little bit more to that section would be a good idea, much appreciatedVivaldi27 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Housing Minister

added a small edit with reference, Bjelke-Petersen became one of Nicklin's cabinet ministers in 1963 as minister for works and housingVivaldi27 (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ouster or Resignation

Legally it was a resignation, not an ouster, for it to be an ouster he would have had to have been dismissed by the Governer General or have had ca vote of no confidence against him in Parlament, neither occured, He resigned, so legally speaking he Resigned. Remember, this is an encyclopedia so we must go with exactly the correct term hereVivaldi27 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your definition is inadequate. As stated earlier, the use of the word resignation seems intended to imply that he left voluntarily. He did not. In this sense, "resignation"is a weasel word.johlover2 (talk)19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats the whole point, he did leave of his own accord, he went to the Governer General and handed in his "Resignaton". He was not outred by a no-confidence vote in parlament and was not sacked by the Governer General. He gave in his resignation, so its a resignation. Now we can mostly certainly discuss in the article the events leading up to his resignation, but in the end, its still a Resignation. In fact, Ouster, is a weasel word because it cannot be substantiated by facts.Vivaldi27 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He did in fact resign; however he was pushed into doing so. Had there not been that pressure on him, he wouldn't have. Had he resisted the pressure, the party would have called a spill, and even if he re-nominated, he would have lost. So, far better to resign voluntarily with some semblance of dignity (not a word I often associate with J B-P) than to have a vote that he could not have won. In constitution-speak he resigned. In political-speak, it would not be misleading to say he was ousted. Btw, Australian states have governors, not governors-general. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The title in Political Chronicle (34(2), June 1988) is "Sir Joh: A painful exit". It says: "Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, premier of Queensland since 8 August 1968, relinquished that post in unhappy circumstances on 1 December 1987. It is also ironic that a political career which had been so spectacularly successful (lists stats) should end in such a personally humiliating fashion."

Reading from Political Chronicle, the sequence of events was (this should not be taken as my opinion or judgement, and I can provide the PDF to anyone by email who wishes to see it, it is much more detailed than this summary):

• Joh for Canberra
• Anointed Gunn as next premier, although Gunn distanced himself significantly, later had important role in Fitzgerald Inquiry and nominated Sir Robert Sparkes for another term as party president despite Sir Joh's opposition. Questions had arisen about Sir Joh's performance and political judgement.
• October - Nat party state council meeting in Rockhampton. "The events which took place at that same state council meeting made clear to Sir Joh that he was now perceived within his own party as an electoral liability." ... Renewed criticism of Sparkes and even threatened to call a snap election and take his party down with him. 8 October "now aware that his party had tired of his antics", announced his own preferred retirement date of 8 August 1988, his 20th anniversary. Greeted with scepticism within party, but most state Nats hoped he would be allowed to see out his preferred term given his contribution over so many years.
• November - state conference prepared for post-BP era. Endorsed Sparkes and somewhat rebuffed positions taken by Sir Joh, even endorsing sex education and prostitution regulation. Also his insistence that Japanese developer Yohachiro Iwasaki be given trusteeship of land at Yeppoon was ignored. Sparkes reelected president with 80% of votes. Gunn suggested Sir Joh was "out of time" and should "go fishing, have a rest and do a fair bit of thinking". Conference left Sir Joh "even more deeply embittered"
• 23-24 November - Sir Joh paid three separate visits to Sir Walter Campbell (Governor) to secure vice-regal endorsement of his plans to sack five ministers, and advise of plans for early election. Governor resisted Sir Joh's advice after receiving other advice individually from Mr Gunn, Mr Ahern and Mr Austin that Sir Joh no longer maintained the support of the parliamentary wing. On that basis interpreted as political not constitutional crisis and encouraged party room resolution. Meanwhile Sir Joh summoned individually each of the five ministers targetted for dismissal and requested resignations. All five refused. Mr McKechnie - insufficient loyalty, Mr Muntz - no reason given, Mr Austin - seen speaking with Sparkes at state conference, Mr Ahern - alleged leaking and moral irresponsibility, Mr Gunn (deputy) for nominating Sparkes as party president. All five refused to resign, Sir Joh now insisted on only three - Ahern, Austin and McKechnie - and arranged Lingard and Simpson to be sworn in. Several other backbenchers offered portfolios, but all refused.
• Governor's interpretation of the crisis -> Sir Joh's audacious bid to hold his post had been thwarted. Remaining backbench support collapsed and both Mike Ahern and Bill Gunn announced candidacy for party leadership at a caucus vote scheduled for 26 November.
• Sir Joh threatened to recall parliament, reportedly attempted to secure a deal with the state ALP, indicated preparedness to call a snap general election. All these were ploys designed to allow him to regroup his position and unsettle adversaries. But these same actions and attempted sacking of five / successful sacking of three ministers underlined concerns about his judgement. "actions were perceived by many senior people within his party as those of a person who was convinced he was greater than his party."
• 48 of 49 members (Sir Joh sole absentee) attended vote. In last bid he called together his 17 ministers an hour before and urged them not to vote on any leadership motions. His call was unheeded and spill motion carried 39 votes to 8, with one abstention. Ahern, Hinze, Gunn candidates - 30, 2, 16 respectively. Gunn elected unopposed as deputy. Mr Ahern phoned state governor to advise of result. Forwarded to Government House a document in which 47 members of the caucus indicated support for leadership. Then commenced several days of attempts to convince Sir Joh to resign.
• Finally succumbed on 1 December announcing his resignation as premier and parliamentarian. "The policies of the National Party are no longer those on which I went to the people. Therefor eI have no wish to lead the Government any longer. It was my intention to take this matter to the floor of State Parliament. However, I now have no further interest in leading the National Party any further." Ahern sworn in as Premier less than an hour later - 2 man executive for several days, until new ministry could be chosen by secret ballot and sworn in.

So he was in fact ousted, although was formally required to resign. However, he had ceased to be the party leader 5 days earlier. Orderinchaos 22:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, some of what you stated Orderinchaos is not correct.

There was no official parliamentary members vote. Only the Premier had the right to call such a meeting, which he did not. He also stated that he had never been asked to call such a meeting. What there was, was an informal meeting in Mike Aherns office where it was decided to support him, but this is not an official vote, and Joh stated he was unaware of such a meeting. Later, Ivan Gibbs told him the news that the others were behind Ahern. Joh further stated that it was his family who had convinced him to resign after spending the weekend at Bethany. It should also be noted in what you said, that the vote in aherns office was 39 votes to 8, this meant that there were not enough numbers to go to the Governer General. As such, they did not have the numbers for an ouster. This is a very key point too.

In the end, legally and constitutionally speaking it was a Resignation. And thats the point im making here, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. In an encyclopedia the correct term is Resignation, but if it was a newspaper article the use of ouster would sound more dramatic. Anyway, ive suggested below a compromise which I believe best suits the situation and Im always happy for us to find some compromise here, kind regardsVivaldi27 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going on what was actually published in the academic journal I consulted, as reliable sources are an important requirement. Also, why would 39 to 8 not be enough? Ultimately, if the source is to be believed, it was actually 47 of the 48 caucus members who were represented to the Governor-General. Orderinchaos 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

39 is not enough because you would need a majority in the house, which would be 45, so they were 6 short. The question here which remains is, did those 8 refuse to support going to the Governer? I mean, if they had the numbers all they had to do was go the Governer and it was all over, but they didnt, so it raises questions and supports johs memoirs that there was no official vote, only a informal get together in Aherns office.Vivaldi27 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note the source you cite is from 1988, if we look at Johs memoirs from 1991, it gives us a very detailed insigtht into what happened and condradicts some of that source. I noted in the article the edit states he refused to call a meeting, but he states in his memoirs that at no stage did anyone ask him, so what do we do about this? Its important we get the exact facts on what happned here.Vivaldi27 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys stop talking about the Governor-General? That office applies to Australia as a whole. This was the State of Queensland, the vice-regal office there being the Governor of Queensland. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I put that one down to tiredness. :) I knew exactly what I meant but I can't explain why I wrote GG. Orderinchaos 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Verification tags Resignation

Ive placed some verification tags on some stuff in the resignation section as my research shows most of the current edits to be incorrect. But lets see what we can all come up with there in the way of referenced material Vivaldi27 (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

compromise suggestion on Resignation

Suggest the new following Heading on dispute, "Events Leading To Resignation".Vivaldi27 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Added resignation Statement

I added the following resignation statement from Joh, Its important for that section of the article, and I remember at the time that this is what was being constantly broadcast on the TV news at the time.

"The policies of the National Party are no longer those on which I went to the people. Therefor I have no wish to lead the Government any longer. It was my intention to take this matter to the floor of State Parliament. However, I now have no further interest in leading the National Party any further."Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Chalk As Premier?

Huh? when was he ever Premier? not corect, the only way he could be Premier was if he was sworn in by the Governer which never happened. After the death of Prizzy, Gorden attempted to be Premier and even went to the Governer, but never had the numbers. The Governer contacted Joh and asked if he would form government with Gorden as Premier, but Joh stated he would not. In the end Joh was sworn in as Premier. Gordon was never Premier.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would seem correct. The fact Political Chronicle makes *no* mention of Chalk in the relevant section and implies a direct suggestion would agree with this assertion. "The premier of Queensland, Mr Jack Pizzey, died at his home of a heart attack at the age of fifty-seven, after having held office for barely six months. He was succeeded by another country party politician, Mr Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, the minister for works, housing, island and native affairs and police." While it means little, I can only find two references which suggest he was an *acting* premier, as you'd expect a deputy to be from time to time, but as with any role, a person acting in a role does not leave their assigned role. For instance, we would not refer to "former Prime Minister Julia Gillard" because she is acting Prime Minister when Rudd is out of the country. Orderinchaos 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're both very much mistaken. This page from the Queensland Parliament's web site says he was premier. Gordon Chalk says he was premier. Premiers of Queensland says he was premier. I was living in Queensland at the time, and I can also assure you he was sworn in as premier. He's often overlooked in places like Political Chronicle, in the same way that Frank Forde and John McEwen are often overlooked as prime ministers. The fact that they were installed on a caretaker basis while the main party was sorting out its new leader, does not mean that they were merely acting. They were all sworn in by the governor/governor-general as the office-holder; a person who acts for the office-holder is not sworn in to that portfolio. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification (and oops!). Yeah that site clearly says: "In August 1968, Gordon Chalk served as Premier of Queensland for eight days. Chalk became Premier after the sudden and unexpected death of the then Premier Jack Pizzey on 1 August 1968, and before the Country Party elected Joh Bjelke-Petersen as Premier on 8 August 1968. He holds the record for having the second shortest term as Premier." It's an official publication, so I'd take that over and above even an academic source. Orderinchaos 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

mmm, most certainly the reference is Authoritive so we will go with that. But Im still going to get in contact with thyem on this for some more clarificationVivaldi27 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gores Comments on Unemployed

I removed Gores comments on unemployed as it has nothing to do with johs biography. It may be better suited in a biography on Gore, but not here.Vivaldi27 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you have someone who said things like Gore, playing a central role in your campaign to become Prime Minister? Not relevant Vivaldi? Why do you reckon the Queensland opposition made much of Joh's Sunday School activity. They did so because they reckoned he was a hypocrite (which you might understand if you knew about his mate Gore's attitudes). Perhaps Vivaldi is one of the many who still love Joh. It's understandable when you consider there are still some Germans who think that Hitler was misunderstood. Was there any proof that Hitler knew about what the SS did to the jews. Perhaps not, so let's edit it out. Such slurs are not relevant and should be removed. Hitler after all, only dominated the government responsible for such abominations.

The only good thing about this foolishness, is that Vivaldi and people like him won't have the last word on Joh!johlover2 —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC).

Not reflecting on your other comments, but I sense a Godwin's Law violation here... :) Orderinchaos 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Hitler might be more relevant than you think. Have you ever wondered why a patriotic, conservative young fellow like Joh didn't volunteer for World War Two? He was twenty eight and single when war broke out. Perhaps he was unfit...but then he did manage to live to the age of 94. Maybe he was just business minded. If that is the case, how was it that he entered the war years as an impoverished sharecropper and emerged with enough cash to buy up war surplus equipment? johlover2 —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

Upper House

"The lack of a state upper house (since its abolition in 1922) allowed executive decisions to be swiftly implemented, yet also meant there were no "checks and balances" applied to the decisions of the lower house." Ok, now this is in the article, but should be removed. First, it was abolished by the Labour party in 1922, before Joh was ever a member of parliament. Now, although the system continued while he was in government, he inherited this from previous governments. Also, the system is still in place in Queensland currently. It really has no relevence to a biography on Joh, and if it is to be included in this article then Im going to add the edit to all biographies of all Premiers of Queensland since 1922 to make it fair and balanced. Really, this edit really belongs in an article on the Westminster system in Australia.Vivaldi27 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is there more by way of explanation I think as to why decisions his government made could be carried without opposition - it's an unusual situation in Australia. In articles I have written on other topics and gotten to featured article or good article status, there has been significant repetition with other articles in the same class, and as long as it's only in summary form, that's fine. The wording as you say does need work to avoid WP:WEASEL issues - the fact it was abolished by a Labor government and the fact it still is the case today are both important facts which have been left out. Orderinchaos 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of it in the Peter Beattie article, for example. While I'm sure it's true, what is needed is a WP:Reliable Source attributing Joh's style, or the political situation, to the lack of an upper house. Otherwise it's just editorialising and needs to go. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, is the statement "The lack of a state upper house ... allowed executive decisions to be swiftly implemented" even correct? The lack of an upper house allows legislation to be passed without having to negotiate with the other parties, but how does it help executive decisions? I don't think parliament can impede lawful executive decisions anyway. (e.g. I'm pretty sure I've heard of governments making executive decisions as a means of avoiding the need for negotiating over legislation.) Peter Ballard (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Break-up of the coalition

I did a bit of updating on this section and included some references there as well to supportVivaldi27 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Joh for Canberra

Did a slight rewrite of the uncited version of this section, and added a few references to support what took place.Vivaldi27 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline of Nationals After Joh

Added a small section mentioning the rapid decline of the Nationals after Joh, that they lost the next election and in 2008 were forced to join a merger with the Liberals.Vivaldi27 (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really see how this had anything to do with Joh's article. The Nationals got a similar percentage of the vote in 2006 to what they were getting in many of the elections Joh won, the result in 1989, essentially a protest vote over Fitzgerald, was entirely to be expected - exactly the same thing happened in 1992 in Victoria and 1993 in WA and SA to Labor governments who had been accused of corruption, but we don't talk about the decline of Labor in those states. The final issue is the LNP one - in any other state Nationals becoming part of the Liberals would suggest a decline in the Nationals' fortunes, but in the peculiar case of Queensland it's seen by many commentators as the Nationals strengthening their position by effectively taking over the state's Liberal Party. So I think we need to be really careful about WP:OR here in asserting that either the Nationals went into decline, or that if they did, it was due directly to some factor or other (Joh not being leader, etc.) Orderinchaos 03:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You need a source (e.g. a respected political commentator) attributing their post-1989 decline to Joh (or lack of Joh). Inferring it from the raw data is WP:OR. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair Enough, Ill go along with that. Although It cant be added here, I probably just added it based more on my own personal experience at the time that people stoped voting National at the election because of the way they had treated Joh, thats wat I kept hearing. I never heard any national party voters turn agianst the party over the Fitzgerald enquiry.203.63.147.154 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I did a couple of edits there without logging in, but 203.63.147.154 is me. I just mention this so no-one thinks im trying to hide anything here, thankyou.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. It happens. :) Orderinchaos 00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Police Commisioner

I removed the section that stated that Bjelke-Petersen had Whitrod replaced as Commissioner by the relatively junior Terry Lewis. First, it is uncited, second the matter is decided by cabinet.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. When I get time (akin to "next blue moon" the rate things are going), I hope to separate out the government from the biography, as political biographies aren't supposed to be events of the day. Orderinchaos 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Political activists and unrtelaible sourcing

Removed the following from the article, "Cheryl Buchanan, chairwoman of the Kooma Traditional Owners Association said it was difficult now for people to accept how different things were in Queensland for Aboriginal people in the 1960s and 1970s. "We got raped by police in those days and couldn't do anything about it. They were the SS. The police would pick us up on a regular basis because they knew who we all were, and they'd take us out the back of Samford and harass us and push us around for hours", Buchanan said. Aboriginal activist Sam Watson said: "Aboriginal people will always remember him [Bjelke-Petersen] as a racist, a thug and a dictator."

Now, there are extensive numerous problems with this, First, they are quotes from political activists, second, the statement from Buchannen refers to problems with the police, no relevence to this biography. Now, the statement is totally unsupported, If there was mass rapes of aboriginal police going on, this matter would have been reported by other news sources, it would these days be the subject of a royal commision, claims for compensdation, etc. Fact is, there has been no such supporting evidence to such allegations and im not even aware of any formal complaints. If there were mass rapes of people this matter would have been a national outcry. Such a statement is going to need a lot of supporting evidence from reliable sources before and there is going to need to be shown in the article a direct connection where to Joh.Vivaldi27 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree purely on the basis that assuming that it did occur (and I don't think it would be that difficult to prove - there are several reliable sources indicating such incidents at the hands of police and other officials all around Australia - eg the Bringing Them Home report), for it to be in this biography, either Joh would need to have been ordering it, or speaking extensively on it or otherwise personally involved, and likewise that it was either some radical departure from the past or otherwise connected with his time in office. I don't think that can be established on any safe ground. An example of the sort of thing that could be included - we had a rather odd incident in Western Australia in the 70s involving a mining lease over an Aboriginal reserve which became hugely controversial (and in the end never went ahead). The premier of the day was very active in the debate, taking a strong personal stand on it, and even his lawn suffered for the privilege (someone drilled holes in it). Orderinchaos 17:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply because people are or were "activists" does not mean that they do not have a valid or reliable point of view. Both Watson and Buchanon (http://www.naidoc.org.au/award_winners/nnaw05/person_f.aspx) are senior members of the Queensland aboriginal community and opposed to what most historians now agree was institutionalised racism in Queensland. Buchanon's quote should be seen in context of what was widespread illegalities involving Queensland police during the period. Why weren't rapes reported? This article elsewhere cites an instance where the Police Commissioner himself was denied the right to investigate police illegalties, in this case the batoning of a student "activist". Joh's decision to deny the inquiry was particularly controversial because the baton strike was clearly shown, in slow motion, on that night's commercial television news. Simply because a Wiki editor is unaware of claims does not mean that no claims were made, nor does it mean that the events did not occur.

Secondly there are two quotes here. The second quote, is attributed to Watson, who was present when police attacked anti apartheid demonstrators during the Springbok tour. Sam Watson is a University of Queensland staff member. (http://www.atsis.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=41868) Watson is expressing his opinion on the way Queensland aboriginal people remember Joh.johlover2 —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC).

Can "Joh's decision to deny the inquiry" and any controversy surrounding it be linked to any reliable source? By reliable source we're looking at preferably published / peer-reviewed texts, or newspaper articles/investigative pieces by mainstream media. I know it limits the field somewhat, but the rules on Wikipedia are pretty strict on this one. I don't doubt it probably did take place, but we've got to be careful what we add and how (i.e. it can't be based on opinion or someone's say-so). If you are aware of a month and year I can look it up on Political Chronicle as well. Orderinchaos 12:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, we are talking about the batoning of the student. The source I am about to quote is Ray Whitrod, the police commissioner in question; "...the afternoon papers came out, [the] two o'clock edition: 'Police Commissioner will investigate the police bashing of a student'. And in between times, I think, the Police Union got onto Joh. Joh rang me up and said, 'There'll be no, no such inquiry. You are not to conduct this without Cabinet approval'. And I explained that all I was doing was seeking ... trying to get the facts. And he said, 'You're not to do that'. He said, 'The people who ... who you ought to be investigating are the students because they were on the roadway'. And I said, 'Well, there's a difference between violence that was used on the students and walking on the roadway'. He said, 'Mr. Commissioner, you're not to do any further investigation'."

(Ray Whitrod; http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/whitrod/interview9.html)

The transcript is worth reading. It shows how Whitrod believed Joh undermined the authority of the Police Commissioner and sacked a police Minister who wanted an inquiry. johlover2 20:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

There is a whole lot of stuff being added to this article quoting, Rae Wear, in fact one whole section solely taken from his book has been added. I have severe concerns about copyright breach here.Vivaldi27 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which bits you mean so I can only offer general input, but if it's exact quotes, it has to come out unless it's in quotation marks and attributed. If it's merely using the ideas, then ideas aren't copyrighted but it needs to be attributed from an intellectual honesty point of view. Could you identify the section and I'll look into it when I'm at UWA on Friday? (They have two books by that author - [3]) Orderinchaos 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ill have to pick up a copy of the book here too. But some of the things stated are not correct as per cabinet documents, so the source may be considered unreliable.Vivaldi27 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

With that said to, there is excessive stuff from Rae Wear here also. This is not suppose to be an article that is merely a collection of Wears viewpointsVivaldi27 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright? If you can't discredit the source, make a red herring claim that what is claimed to be overuse indicates a breach of copyright. If Order's university lecturers know what they are doing , they will tell him that provided the material is sourced, there's no problem. Indeed, academics benefit from having their material cited. I have used Wear (http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/dr-rae-wear) because she has written the most most comprehensively sourced book on Joh. The book is not some self created website. Its published by University of Queensland Press, which is regarded as quite reputable.

By the way,be careful when you quote cabinet documents placed on the web by the Queensland government. These can sometimes be merely summaries and do not constitute the full record studied by scholars. Although I did notice that the 1972 summary actually quotes Wear as a source!(Eg "Bjelke-Petersen later recalled that the Springbok tour 'put him on the map' and provided him with 'great fun', while the government's actions apparently swayed some voters, and the coalition won two crucial by-elections soon after" Quoted in Wear (2002) Johannes Bjelke-Petersen: The Lord's Premier, University of Queensland Press, Brisbane, p138.

(See: http://www.archives.qld.gov.au/1972cabdocs/endnotes.asp)

Could it be the author of the 1972 Cabinet documents also sees Wear as a reliable source?

As indicated earlier, Wear is a University of Queensland specialist on rural populist politics. Her PhD or Doctorate, awarded in 1999, was titled "Johannes Bjelke-Petersen : a study in populist leadership". (http://library.uq.edu.au/search~S7/X?SEARCH=Rae+wear&SORT=A&j=t&x=16&y=15) To get a PhD, the highest form of academic degree, you have to work full time for three to five years on the topic, write about a hundred thousand words and then get it examined by three top scholars. In my view, that makes Wear an internationally recognised academic authority on Joh. That doesn't mean she's infallible, but you would have to quote her extensively in any credible biography of Bjelke.

Sadly for those who want to write history without reading it, there are even more books critical of Joh, notably those written by journalists Evan Whitton Hugh Lunn, and of course Phil Dickie. They are recommended reading.

Good luck with your exams, Order!!!

johlover2 (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Re copyright, I wasn't sure at all to what material Vivaldi was referring, hence my reply asking for more information. My concerns would relate only to anything that wasn't cited, or any exact quotes which were not attributed. If that's taken care of then no copyright or intellectual property claim could really stand. Orderinchaos 09:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)