Talk:Edmund Barton

A mason?
[SOME MATERIAL LOST FROM HERE ...] that's ridiculous. the fact he was a mason as sourced here should be known widely in his bio. to call it "link-spam" is almost criminal. Rcm 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's rather a bit of hyperbole. You were systematically adding the same text to successive pages in often irrelevant areas with an external link. I took this to be spam. Please integrate the reference with the article, rather than just tacking it on the end.--cj | talk 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Racist?
Would Barton be considered a racist in todays terms? It seems he made quite a number of racist or "racialistic" speaches, namely the need to " secure the future of our fair country against the tide of inferior and unequal asians arriving from the north".AQjosh 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Off course he's a racist, calling another race inferior automatically qualify him as suchCanpark 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A direct quote is "There is no racial equality. There is basic inequality. These races are, in comparison with white races—I think no one wants convincing of this fact—unequal and inferior."
 * https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/APF/monographs/Within_Chinas_Orbit/Chapterone Donh1952 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * I think it's obvious it was a social norm at the time, for the elected prime minister to be racist evinces that. However, it doesn't change it from being racist.  There are forms of racism that are social norms now.  You can qualify it by mentioning that racism was the norm at the time, if that makes it sound less pejorative to you.  See the wikipedia article Racism for discussion of its meanings.  --- and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I 100% agree that it's still racism. I never said it wasn't. Just pointing out virtually every single person you would have known if you lived back then were extreme racists by today's standards. Timeshift 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cabinet?
'Bold textwho was in sir edmund barton's cabinet???
 * As far as I can recall, his cabinet consisted mostly of the former Premiers (except the Tasmanian Premier) plus O'Connor and Deakin.Doktor Waterhouse 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This doesn't add up, but looking at the image itself, I'm not sure whether the mistake is that it should say 1914 instead of 1904, or if it should say 55 instead of 65. Anyone know which is correct? Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to this the photo was taken in January 1914. He was born on 18 January 1849 so in the photo he is either 64 or 65. I've amended the caption accordingly. Melburnian (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Immigration speech
In case anyone's interested in a 1907 speech attributed to Edmund Barton ("we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself to us..." etc etc) which appears now and again, you can read more about it here. Apparently it is actually a quote from Theodore Roosevelt in 1913, first quoted in the New York Times the day after Roosevelt's death - references to America in the popular internet version have been altered to refer to Australia. It was mentioned in this article but an editor has decided that a quote popularly attributed to Edmund Barton has nothing whatsoever to do with subject of an article about Edmund Barton. I'll not bother to reinstate it because it'll just get eradicated again, but I though this small point of historical interest might be of use to someone. Cnbrb (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You note that a hoax has been identified that seems to have been perpetrated in single email. Unless the hoax has been widely successful - and I for one hadn't come across it - why should WP bother with it? Wikiain (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just encountered the same hoax on Facebook. So almost nine months later, it is still going around. I don't know if that counts as "widely successful", but it certainly has had a certain degree of success. SJK (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmund Barton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121229140647/http://sydneyrowingclub.com.au/Rowing/about-history.php to http://www.sydneyrowingclub.com.au/Rowing/about-history.php

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

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

Numbering of Prime Ministers
Hello, just wondering if a discussion has already occurred on another talk page about the numbering of Prime Ministers in infoboxes. If not, can we try to reach some kind of consensus here?
 * I argue that the officeholders need not be numbered. Perhaps the first for historical importance and the current Prime Minsiter for reference, but otherwise the numbering is completely useless. It is common in American political infoboxes to number offices. Although the Australian system draws from the American one, the executive division of Australian government is more similar to the United Kingdom, where offices are not numbered. No other offices in Australian infoboxes are consistently numbered, except for the Prime Minister, Governor-General and Chief Justice. SpaceFox99 (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Rather they be numbered, like the prime ministers of 'most' of the other Commonwealth realms are. See prime ministers of Canada, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, etc. The UK prime ministers are the 'only' ones not numbered, among the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The numerical ordering of Australian Prime Ministers from 1901 onwards
 * seems to be completely wrong.
 * For example, William Morris 'Billy' Hughes is listed as the 7th Prime
 * Minister of Australia. Conducting my own research, I have actually
 * found that he is actually the 11th, not 7th. Other similar mistakes
 * with other Prime Ministers down the line.
 * This is what my research showed:-
 * 1st	Edmund Barton		(Protectionist)			Tue 1st Jan 1901 - Thu 24th Sep 1903
 * 2nd	Alfred Deakin		(Protectionist)			Thu 24th Sep 1903 - Wed 27th Apr 1904
 * 3rd	John Christian Watson	(Labor [ALP])			Wed 27th Apr 1904 - Thu 18th Aug 1904
 * 4th	George Houston Reid	(Free Trade)			Thu 18th Aug 1904 - Wed 5th Jul 1905
 * 5th	Alfred Deakin		(Protectionist)			Wed 5th Jul 1905 - Fri 13th Nov 1908
 * 6th	Andrew Fisher		(Labor [ALP])			Fri 13th Nov 1908 - Wed 2nd Jun 1909
 * 7th	Alfred Deakin		(Liberal)			Wed 2nd Jun 1909 - Fri 29th Apr 1910
 * 8th	Andrew Fisher		(Labor [ALP])			Fri 29th Apr 1910 - Tue 24th Jun 1913
 * 9th	Joseph Cook		(Commonwealth Liberal)		Tue 24th Jun 1913 - Thu 17th Sep 1914
 * 10th	Andrew Fisher		(Labor [ALP])			Thu 17th Sep 1914 - Wed 27th Oct 1915
 * 11th	William Morris Hughes	(Labor [ALP], 1915 - 16)	Wed 27th Oct 1915 - Fri 9th Feb 1923
 * (National Labor, 1916 - 17)
 * (Nationalist, 1917 - 1929)
 * 12th	Stanley Melbourne Bruce	(Nationallist)			Fri 9th Feb 1923 - Tue 22nd Oct 1929
 * 13th	James Henry Scullin	(Labor [ALP])			Tue 22nd Oct 1929 - Wed 6th Jun 1932
 * 14th	Joseph Aloysius Lyons	(United Australia)		Wed 6th Jun 1932 - Fri 7th Apr 1939
 * 15th	Earle Page		(Country)			Fri 7th Apr 1939 - Wed 26th Apr 1939
 * 16th	Robert Gordon Menzies	(United Australia)		Wed 26th Apr 1939 - Fri 29th Aug 1941
 * 17th	Arthur William Fadden	(Country)			Fri 29th Aug 1941 - Tue 7th Oct 1941
 * 18th	John Joseph Curtin	(Labor [ALP])			Tue 7th Oct 1941 - Thu 5th Jul 1945
 * 19th	Francis Michael Forde	(Labor [ALP])			Fri 6th Jul 1945 - Fri 13th Jul 1945
 * 20th	Joseph Ben Chifley	(Labor [ALP])			Fri 13th Jul 1945 - Mon 19th Dec 1949
 * 21st	Robert Gordon Menzies	(Liberal)			Mon 19th Dec 1949 - Wed 26th Jan 1966
 * 22nd	Harold Edward Holt	(Liberal)			Wed 26th Jan 1966 - Tue 19th Dec 1967
 * 23rd	John McEwen		(Country)			Tue 19th Dec 1967 - Wed 10th Jan 1968
 * 24th	John Grey Gorton	(Liberal)			Wed 10th Jan 1968 - Wed 10th Mar 1971
 * 25th	William McMahon		(Liberal)			Wed 10th Mar 1971 - Tue 5th Dec 1972
 * 26th	Edward Gough Whitlam	(Labor [ALP])			Tue 5th Dec 1972 - Tue 11th Nov 1975
 * 27th	John Malcolm Fraser	(Liberal)			Tue 11th Nov 1975 - Fri 11th Mar 1983
 * 28th	Robert (Bob) Hawke	(Labor [ALP])			Fri 11th Mar 1983 - Fri 20th Dec 1991
 * 29th	Paul John Keating	(Labor [ALP])			Fri 20th Dec 1991 - Mon 11th Mar 1996
 * 30th	John Winston Howard	(Liberal)			Mon 11th Mar 1996 - Mon 3rd Dec 2007
 * 31st	Kevin Michael Rudd	(Labor [ALP])			Mon 3rd Dec 2007 - Thu 24th Jun 2010
 * 32nd	Julia Eileen Gillard	(Labor [ALP])			Thu 24th Jun 2010 - Thu 27th Jun 2013
 * 33rd	Kevin Michael Rudd	(Labor [ALP])			Thu 27th Jun 2013 - Wed 18th Sep 2013
 * 34th	Anthony (Tony) Abbott	(Liberal)			Wed 18th Sep 2013 - Tue 15th Sep 2015
 * 35th	Malcolm Bligh Turnbull	(Liberal)			Tue 15th Sep 2015 - Fri 24th Aug 2018
 * 36th	Scott John Morrison	(Liberal)			Fri 24th Aug 2018 - Mon 23rd May 2022
 * 37th	Athony Albanese		(Labor [ALP])			Mon 23rd May 2022 - present
 * So, all in all, Australia has had 37 Prime Ministers not 31 as listed on Anthony Albanese's Wiki page.
 * Any comment?
 * CoolHipDude CoolHipDude (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would comment that three of those people held the prime ministership for multiple non-consecutive terms, those being: Alfred Deakin (3 times), Andrew Fisher (3 times), and Kevin Rudd (2 times). That's 31 people who have been prime minister, hence the "31 prime ministers".--Canley (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of other comments: the ordinal numbering of Australian PMs (and the counting of people not tenures) is commonly referred to in government and the media (some examples: NAA, SMH, MOAD). No reason a UK convention or consensus should trump what is clearly a widespread convention in Australia. And it's not correct that PM, GG and CJ are the only "numbered" offices in infobox, it is also widespread in articles about state premiers and even a large number of ministerial roles. --Canley (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Glebe hyperlink
Hyperlink for Glebe in 'Childhood and Education' leads to the article 'Glebe', not 'Glebe, New South Wales'. I guess Glebe NSW was an actual glebe at the time, but the wording seems like it should refer to Glebe NSW Trichosurusvulpecula2 (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link as a duplicate. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)