Talk:1975 Australian constitutional crisis/Archive 4

Wikipedia’s reputation is at stake
I am wondering what is happening here. The first five paragraphs of this in certifiably important encyclopaedic entry have no citations. The basic facts are now fading into remote history so I inserted one reference from recent reading, to a book by perhaps the most eminent scholar in the field, Professor Jenny Hocking. The reverter called it “unnecessary” – no reason why, no talk contribution, no beg to politely disagree – just revert.

I searched the rules and could not find any style manual item discouraging references for lead paragraphs. Occasionally I have made mistakes. My record shows, however, that I have always thanked those who have corrected me in good faith.

I noticed other entries have been similarly and superficially reverted. Done in such a facile way, I believe, is a serious offence to a fellow editor/contributor. The only question which should be asked by a reverter is — Is this a significant correction/alteration? Is it a fact backed by a respected source or not? And if an editor considers they must do it - a civilised, polite, reluctant reason should be respectfully given in the talk page.

If it is a disputatio inter doctores then there are ways to check the facts or relate to the public the existence of the dispute. This is especially important in such a central pericope of Australian history.

I also consider that the unjustified remarks - “conspiracy theories” - “advert” - “sensationalist” are most disrespectful to one of our most distinguished historians. Inter alia, Professor Hocking has written unquestionably well-researched books on Lionel Murphy, Gough Whitlam, the Dismissal and the Palace Letters. Her publishers are Cambridge University Press and Melbourne University Press. Various books have received a number of awards. To call her conclusions “conspiracy theories” in such an offhand way without any source to back it up, I consider disrespectful in the extreme. It also brings Wikipedia, as an objective authority, into disrepute with the general public.

In the politest way possible, I ask Skyring and Hairy Dude to have a really good look at their past reversions and justify them academically if possible. If not, revert the reversions.Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The WP:LEDE should be a summary of the whole article, which of course will be well referenced. So sticking something in the lede that isn't in the main body is wrong to begin with and giving it WP:UNDUE prominence.


 * Secondly, Hocking's book is sensationalist conspiracy theory. Read Paul Kelly's response. He knows this topic better than anyone and has some hard comments about Hocking's theories in the (sadly) less well known book he published after her clickbait thriller.


 * Basically there's nothing at all surprising in the Palace letters except that Kerr was a weak character seeking justification from HM for his sneaky actions and HM really wanted nothing at all to do with it. Hocking tries to portray Buckingham Palace as all up in the business, giving coded instructions on how to kick Whitlam out, and being the secret power bypassing democracy. Crap like that.


 * There is zero evidence for Hocking's theories. She puts forwards various documents and invites the reader to connect the dots. That is WP:SYNTHESIS and entirely inappropriate here. If Hocking could find someone to state what she claims, then she would identify and quote them and so would every other historian with an interest. Why not create an article - if there is not one already - with all the CIA nonsense and add in Hocking's book? That's where her stuff belongs, not in a serious arrticle where we try to present sourced factual information. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a stretch. Hocking is a prolific scholar about Whitlam and the dismissal with one opinion. Kelly is a prolific writer with an opposing ideological opinion of similar legitimacy. I can't speak to his early career work because I was young or not born, but his work in recent years is extraordinarily conservative. I personally find them both too partisan for my liking, but the suggestion that Kelly as the right-wing journalist is more authoritative than Hocking as the academic biographer is ideological nonsense. There's no need for a reference to that particular Hocking work in the lead as nothing specific is being referenced to it, but in the rest of the article we should just report the sources, and the disagreements between the sources, as ever. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Kelly has interviewed virtually everyone involved in the episode. He was there at the heart of it while it unfolded. He has written multiple books on the personalities and the events. He is extraordinarly well-regarded. This is the first time I've ever heard him referred to as having a conservative leaning. He is quite sympathetic to Whitlam, regarding him as a victim, at least in Kerr's handling of him.


 * His book on the letters and Hocking debunks her views point by point. Hocking's theory that the Palace was an active player is simply not sustained by any facts; her take on the relationship between sovereign and governor-general has more to do with Disney than constitutional reality. The Queen is unable to issue orders to the Governor-General on anything significant and certainly not in this case. She is pushing sensationalist barrow to lift her profile - and book sales - and we should not be part of this. --Pete (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is the first time you've ever heard that the former editor of The Australian who kicked off its push to the right, who's continually obsessed with the separation of church and state being a bad thing, likes to go on about the gay agenda being promoted in schools, who is opposed to most LGBT and racial discrimination laws, calls euthanasia "state-sanctioned killing" and hates events that celebrate minorities in general, among many eccentricities, is "conservative"? Pull the other one. Your take on Hocking is similarly blinkered, and you're misrepresenting her views in order to dismiss them. We don't ignore major, widely-cited contributions to a topic because you think we shouldn't be part of citing people you disagree with, nor do we prioritise partisan viewpoints because you do agree with them. We just cite the sources and explain the controversy. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. We cite all reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarify, &  please. Has material been removed, because the Australian monarch was mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right User:The Drover's Wife. The comments denigrating an esteemed scholar's award-winning work are disgraceful and bring this page into disrepute. It should now be noted as having questions over its neutrality. 2001:8003:3758:8700:E5FF:4323:AFEF:2345 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping it's not because the scholar mentioned Elizabeth II & Buckingham Palace, in her writings on this event. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Gladiator-Citizen, please see MOS:LEADCITE. Citations should typically be avoided in the lede as it's primarily a summary of information that is already in the article (and should thus already be sourced with an inline citation). ITBF (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why Gladiator-Citizen is trying to get me involved. I've made a grand total of two edits to this article: adding a link and conforming it to MOS, nothing content-related. I don't know the authors involved in this dispute and have no opinion as to their reliability as sources. I will say one thing in response to the above, though: WP:SYNTHESIS is a guideline about Wikipedia content, a consequence of the core policy against original research in Wikipedia's original content. It does not apply to Wikipedia's sources, which are allowed to (and in fact generally should) be original research and make syntheses that would be improper for Wikipedia. It is wholly misconceived to condemn a source on the grounds that it would breach WP:SYNTHESIS if it were Wikipedia content. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Musical comedy
It seems like the musical comedy was never performed. How should be handle this?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for some response, in an earlier discussion on this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see that discussion. I'm inclined to delete the reference.Jack Upland (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion (concerning the dismissal), where there's complaints about removal of info based on which author was more reliable - Hocking or Kelly. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)