Talk:Disappearance of Harold Holt

Popular culture / External links
I'm not going to add any of these to article as maybe already considered and discounted. In Down Under (book) travel writer Bill Bryson was rather bemused about us 'losing' our prime minister. Bryson called it "Swim that needs no towel", see here. Normie Rowe article says he has played Holt three times, because he looks like Holt and as Holt singing, This year's a sci-fi!. The Prime Minister is Missing Looks licensed, can use for ext link? Ditto funeral clip British Pathé. JennyOz (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's definitely a work in progress, and you're welcome to contribute – cheers for the links. I added Bill Bryson's quote – I'd come across it before, but without knowing he was the author. I definitely want to add a lot more links to external videos... there's a lot of fantastic newsreel and documentary footage out there. One thing I'm slightly wary about is making sure everything still relates back to the disappearance, not just Holt in general. E.g., I considered adding a list of the documentaries, films, plays, etc., that have been made about Holt, but then I thought that that probably belonged more in the main article about Holt. I've worked on the main article a little bit as well and it definitely needs a lot more improvement. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and I agree that some more properly belong on Holt's main article. I am also wary that sometimes popular culture sections can become full of inane trivia. Glad you added Bryson's quip. Thanks. JennyOz (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by NPalgan2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Harold_Holt#/media/File:Make_Like_Harold_Holt.jpg is just a random primary source photo. There’s no reference to it or similar posters from a RS in the text, bar the nonspecific "Holt's death has entered Australian folklore, and is frequently the subject of black humour.” You could have a photo of anti-Cronulla fans at the AFL because there’s a well sourced reference to that. Otherwise you could shoehorn nonenyclopedic photos of anarchist agitprop into hundreds of other articles. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The photo demonstrates Holt's place in Australian culture better than any other freely available image. Have a look on social media; 90% of the reaction to all the news stories about the 50th anniversary is people making jokes about inviting Turnbull or Trump for a swim. Your characterisation of the photo as "anarchist agitprop" is bizarre and I doubt any readers would view it as such. All photos are "primary sources", there's no requirement on Wikipedia for a photo to be discussed by a reliable source before it can be used in the article. I fail to see how a poor-quality photo of a random modernist building (that doesn't even look like a pool or make any reference to Holt) is somehow a better illustration of Holt's place in Australian culture. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Viewpoint by Ivar the Boneful


 * Third opinion by François Robere: An illustration doesn't need a specific reference in the body if it's topical and captioned appropriately. That being said, one shabby banner captured in an ill-lit and badly-framed photo is hardly a good illustration. I would suggest replacing it not for irrelevance per se, but for technical and artistic reasons. François Robere (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Third opinion by Kerry Raymond: I see no problem with the inclusion of this photo. It illustrates "Holt's death has entered Australian folklore, and is frequently the subject of black humour". It image specifically mentions Holt, swimming (the cause of his death), is about politics (Holt was a politician), and is black humour. It seems pretty much on-message to me. Kerry (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC) And if it was suitably licensed (it's not), I'd be in favour of including the photo here to illustrate the faces and wetsuits Cronulla story. Harold Holt is part of our popular culture. Kerry (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Aside: I don't disagree with anyone saying it's not a brilliant photo or that there might be better ways to illustrate the section, I'm just arguing the case about relevancy of this particular photo to the article. If there's something better, go for it. Kerry (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Third opinion by The Drover's Wife: I find this pretty bizarre: why, of all the possible examples of Holt's death entering Australian folklore, would we have a stupid banner by some dude? A much better photo for this section (being that it also includes the memorials one) would be the Harold Holt Swimming Centre. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment If the rando who made the sign had made a Facebook status instead, would it be due weight and encyclopedic to include a screenshot of it? No, that would be absurd. This banner is the equivalent of an anonymous piece of social media. (And it is anarchist agitprop - there’s an anarchist symbol on it!)

There’s a place on wikipedia for user-created photos - someone’s earlobe in earlobe, a roast chicken in roast chicken. But these are very, very concretely related to some material that is discussed in the article body. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic". Whether or not it is agitprop isn't an issue (see WP:CENSOR). The question that the policy asks us to consider is does the image look like what it is meant to illustrate, in this case the Harolt Holt disappearance meme? And although it doesn't matter for the purposes of the policy, I think the image is authentic (the Flickr user says it was taken in Newtown in 2010 and you can see one of the dog statues of Newtown which were installed in 2008 in the upper left of the photo). Kerry (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by Aoziwe: I think the banner is a bit crass, a bit insensitive to Holt's family, and a marginal very low end of the scale death threat to politicians, but Wikipedia is not censored and it does illustrate the cultural context described in the article.  It is not the best photo in itself or image of the cultural meme, but not sufficient grounds for removal.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Third opinion by User:Lankiveil: I don't see the image as offensive, but I also don't see that it adds much that isn't already present in the article text. I certainly don't think it's a good enough photograph to include for purely aesthetic reasons, either.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC).

Infobox use in article
I have again included this infobox in the article (for the second time). Infoboxes are a quick and convenient summary of the key facts about any subject, in a consistent format and layout to all articles across Wikipedia; especially events such as the purpose of this article. It also helps users to quickly identify that they are on the correct/intended article. Excellent examples of an Info boxes application are: Assassination of John F. Kennedy, September 11 attacks etc. Романов (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Round the World Trip
I've mentioned quite often that the memorial service beginning LBJ's round the world trip, but it's been removed. But we need to know how historic his presence at the service was, as it inaugurated the first ever round-the-world trip by a president of the United States. -- SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 23:38 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that LBJ was among the foreign leaders who attended the memorial service is clearly noteworthy. Calling his presence historically significant is an overstatement, especially for the reason you stake that claim upon. The fact it it was the first stop on what became the first ever round-the-world trip by a U.S. president is tangential to his presence at the memorial service and a minor trivial aside within the context of the topic of this article. Drdpw (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The memorial service was part of his round the world trip. Both the memorial service and his audience with Pope Paul VI have become synonymous with LBJ's round the world trip. In fact, no other president had staged a round the world trip before. This is the only reason why I bring this up. From the service, he would travel to Thailand and South Vietnam to meet with American troops, to Karachi to meet with the president of Pakistan, to Rome, and then back home to Washington. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * LBJ's presence at the service is the only fact pertinent to this article. Drdpw (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)