Talk:Harold Holt

Death
In much the same way that I remember hearing of JFK's death, Harold Holt's demise was a singular moment. Steve Smith & I had just spent three weeks backpacking in SW Tasmania. The first humans we had seen in half a month turned up on the trail & gave us the news - in January!. Having seen the LBJ imperial procession in downtown Sydney in October '66 - my first thought was that Oz is a truly free society - Imagine Nixon hitting the beach solo! Along the same lines, several years earlier whilst hitchhiking from the Big Smoke to Wagga Wagga (my home town), a big black limo stopped for me, - the blokes in front informed me that I was sitting where Menzies "planted his bum". I have lived in the Western United States for the last three decades & I can say with certainty that a) no US President will ever go solo ocean swimming, and that b) no US President's limo will ever pick up a hitchhiker.

Is one society more free than the other? - cheers Dave.


 * That is all fair comment, but it is also fair to note that no Australian PM has ever been assassinated (there has never even been an attempt), whereas four US Presidents have been assassinated, so it is hardly surprising that their security is much tighter. Adam 06:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * However, no US President has ever disappeared into the ocean, either. The closest we've had is William Henry Harrison refusing to wear a coat to his inauguration and dying of pneumonia. Xyzzyva 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Holt's disappearance stunned Australia enough to be marked by public lexicon, with the term 'Doing a Harry Holt' being employed as rhyming slang for 'Doing the bolt' - meaning to leave suddenly or disappear. This term is in use today, though it seems when shortened to 'Do a Harry' it becomes interchangeable with the phrase 'Do a Harry Houdini' (also meaning to disappear).

Was HH a *SCUBA* diver? All footage I've seen of him swimming shows only snorkeling gear. That would make it much easier for him to have been taken whole by a shark/submarine!!220.240.228.205 (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Inquest
The 2005 Age article talks of an inquest yet to be held, so presumably it wasn't held in 2003 as the SMH story implies. Pete 11:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Likely explanation for Holt's death
Adam, I don't disagree with this assessment. But I though the coroner's verdict made that sort of irrelevant now. It might perhaps better follow the text about the coroner's verdict. I'm not really fussed either way. Cheers JackofOz 06:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that the Coroner has given a ruling, we don't need to speculate further, and the Coroner's verdict can be quoted. Adam 07:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really, if Holt was 'knocked off'. The accident theory looks like disinformation to me after reading Anthony Grey's book 'The Prime Minister was a spy'. An accident is far too simplistic. Grey's Chinese submarine story looks really quaint, but has all the hallmarks of disinformation, not Chinese hallmarks, especially in view of the witness intimidation events, which were complete overkill. So, who had an interest in making Holt go away?

Holt was a complete wildcard in international politics. He was vulnerable to blackmail, because he was a womaniser or perhaps bisexual, close to organised crime since the falsification of his lawyer qualification records in Melbourne, and a friend of China regardless who was in power. At the height of the Vietnam and Cold Wars such a person was intolerable as a Prime Minister. ASIO, the Australian Secret Service, was obvioulsy sceptical and when you look at other literature, how closely ASIO and the CIA worked hand in glove, the CIA must have known.

Greys book mentions ASIO but not the CIA - and that gives it away. The reader is not supposed to think in that direction - hm.

What Grey sees as a Harold Holt's great merit in history, shortening the Korean War, would have angered Washington. Holt passed on US plans to threaten bombardment of bases in China, if the Chinese did not cave in at the conference table. Knowing this, the Chinese did cave in, but the US might have well preferred to drop the bombs and unseat Mao. Holt spoiled that for them.

As all US activities are about US companies getting access to markets, shortening the Korean War was counterproductive for US goals. They could have had access to the Chinese market in the 1950s, if Holt had not spoilt it for them by working with China.

If you read about the Petrov affair in 1954, the Combe/Ivanov affair in1983, and other literature (Wright's 'Spycatcher', Robinson's 'The Laundrymen') which deal with secret services, it becomes very clear that the proponents of the Vietnam War needed to get rid of Holt because Holt worked for the benefit of China and Australia, instead of focussing on US access to markets.

One of the frogman who searched for Holt, became a businessman years later, operating a company that was a front for ASIO. Later literature suggests he was turned and worked for the KGB also. He has all the hallmarks of being the nameless 'Australian businessman' who was the initiator of Anthony Grey's book. The amount of time and effort that the 'nameless Australian businessman' put into tracing Holt's life is not in step with a busines mind, who is solely interested in money. He, if he indeed existed, was put up to this by those who wanted to blur tracks.

Grey's otherwise excellent analyses, thinking patterns as well as language, suggest, that he was/is part of the intelligence services himself. In hindsight, it is rather weird that Holt became Prime Minister of Australia at all. Somehow, ASIO and the CIA must have missed something, or they would have unseated Holt before he moved up in the ranks.


 * We've includedabout as much as Grey's theory as needs be mentioned in this biographical article, given the requirements for credible sources. Perhaps there is a need for a new article on alternate theories for Holt's death, where there would be more latitude? --Pete 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly; an acquaintaince of mine was at the beach and told me that Holt had been drinking when he chatted to her, but she kept quiet about it for ages, I suppose it was likely to be too much trouble mentioning it.Polypipe Wrangler 12:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you were misinformed because there were only 4 witnesses on the beach.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In memoriam
I must admit to laughing a bit at the crassness of naming a swimming pool after him considering his unfortunate end. Kewpid 06:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * AFAICT, it wasn't a matter of "let's build a swimming pool and name it after him" so much as "he's just died and we need to name something after him, the only major building project we've got going is the swimming pool".


 * Mention of the memorials got deleted in an incident of vandalism and didn't make it back into the article afterwards; I've re-added it (with slight expansion on the swimming pool) on the assumption that this was an oversight rather than a deliberate decision to leave it out. --Calair 06:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

there is a memorial to him in the Melbourne General Cemetery, too - the Prime Minister's Memorial Garden. Gsaus (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Private Holt
[Uncited claim about a person categorised as disappeared deleted by Andjam (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)] (edit of 22 April 2006 by 144.132.101.186)

[Uncited claim about a person categorised as disappeared deleted by Andjam (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)] Engleham (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit changed into an addition. It is considered bad form to edit someone else's comments. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's publicised now, if not necessarily "published". --  JackofOz (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing or dead?
This article is in categorised as missing persons, so is it fair to say "Harold Holt died on..." or should it say "...went missing on..."

Holt is not missing, he is legally dead. Adam 14:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

At the time, missing for a period of 6mo, *and* where there was good reason to assume a fatality, became legally dead.220.240.228.205 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Date of death
More of a query than anything: Holt's date of death preceeds the end of his commission as Prime Minister. While I realise that McEwen wouldn't have been immediately sworn in because of the hope of finding Holt, given that his death was (as I understnad it) was retrospectively deemed to be the date of his disappearance, wouldn't his commission also be legally terminated by his death. Thus, if his death is put as 17 December then his commission should also be taken to have ended on that date? Now I know that would leave the period 17 December - 20 December where Australia actually had no commissioned PM but is that any more ludicrous than a dead man being commissioned? Well, it's all more academic than anything but I was just curious if there were any constitutional law experts out there... Shadow007 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A minister holding a commission from the crown continues to hold that commission until it is withdrawn, even if they are dead. Adam 09:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Is this established by law or custom? Shadow007 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In matters of this kind in the Westminster system custom is law. Adam 14:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing of recent expanded article
Someone has recently done an extensive rewrite and expansion of this article. Unfortunately, it was deficient in several respects.
 * The huge section on events in the Liberal Party after Holt's death is irrelevant.
 * A complete history of Australia's involvement in Vietnam is irrelevant (as are the author's opinions about it)
 * The discussion of Menzies' views on the monarchy and the US alliance is irrelevant (also full of opinions)
 * The author's opinions on what is "unfortunate", "significant", "historic" etc, and on whether Menzies was "fawning" or an "autocrat" etc, do not belong in the article. Nor does the usual tiresome eulogising of Whitlam.
 * The 1967 referendum (not plebiscite) did not change the citizenship status of indigenous Australians (an endlessly repeated error).
 * Annabelle Rankin was not the first woman federal minister.
 * All this new content is largely unsourced. I know where it comes from (Alan Reid) but the reader doesn't. Reid was an dreadful old gossip and as a hired hack of the Packers his material must be seen as partisan journalism, not history. All this stuff about Holt's last months is pure speculation on Reid's part.
 * Generally this material is journalistic, over-written, over-opinionated and dotted with errors of fact. I have cleaned up the worst of it but more editing is needed. It does not meet current Wikipedia standards on sourcing. Adam 07:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as prime minister of Australia the consequences of his death on political matters is entirely relevant to the article. Furthermore, where else would this information go? It is certainly all historically verifiable and relevant.

As to the quality of Alan Reid as a source, that is not really up to you to judge, under wikipedia standards, if you've sourced the material to Alan Reid then you can attribute the information to him. You can't have it both ways when it comes to referencing sources (removing unsourced information you don't like and ALSO removing sources that you don't like). --I (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions to Holt article
Adam -- I acknowledge and apoligize for any shortcomings in the factual accuracy, language and referencing of my additions to this article. Sorry about that -- I can only plead that I have had to make most of the editorial changes "on the fly" and from memory, without direct access to my reference material, since I have no internet access at home at present. Also, some of the locations I have been using (e.g. my local public library) have somewhat troublesome and unreliable web access and on occasion I have lost significant portions of text during editing. PLEASE consider it a work in progress. I am still learning the Wiki referencing rules and techniques, and any advice on this would be appreciated.

I have to say that generally I found your comments somewhat bitchy and pejorative, however, apart from that, I also have to take specific issue with several of the points you raised:


 * Whilst I agree that a lengthy discussion of Australia's role Vietnam ca. 1967 is best confined to the major articles on the conflict, some mention of Holt's significant personal role in promoting and expanding Australia's involvement is IMO essential. Also, whilst I agree that the language has to be carefully considered (and I was probably overly opinionated) I definitely feel that the relationship between Holt and Johnson needs to be discussed here. I think that informed opinions -- such as Alan Renouf's stated view that Holt had in effect been seduced by his "friendship" with Johnson -- need to be canvassed, not only because of its significance at the time, but also in terms of the ongoing power relationship between the USA and Australia, up to and inlcuding the current "friendship" between Mr Howard and Mr Bush, which has clear and obvious parallels with the Holt-Johnson dynamic.


 * I am unsure how I was "eulogising" Whitlam? There is no question that he was a formidable opponent, both in parliament and in the media, that in the context of the times he was vastly superior to Calwell as a leader, and that he hurt Holt and the government significantly over the VIP planes affair. (BTW -- strictly speaking one can only eulogise somebody after they are dead.)


 * I strongly dispute the claim that a discussion 1967-68 leadership struggle is irrelevant. Holt's disappearance brought about McEwen's appointment as caretaker PM, which in turn triggered the Xmas '67 leadership crisis, an event that showed serious cracks in Coalition unity for the first time, and one that had the obvious potential to split the Coalition if mishandled. Further, McEwen's veto of McMahon took him out of the running for PM until after McEwen's retirement and led directly to the election of Gorton. All this stems DIRECTLY from Holt's unexpected death -- how can it be irrelevant?

Dunks 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Reid was a highly partisan commentator and that this needs to be stated -- e.g. it is well known that he (and Packer) were McMahon supporters and that Reid disliked Gorton intensely. However, his stature as the leader of the parlimentary press gallery at the time, and the most senior political correspondent of his day, surely deserves some respect? There can be no question about the breadth and depth of his 'insider' political knowledge, and whilst his speculations need to be acknowledged as such (which I think(?) I did), they ought to be included when they are relevant, since he is one of the few non-academic commentators of the day who wrote about Holt in any detail. I feel strongly that his remarks about matters such as reputed growing dissension within the Liberal Party prior to Holt's death and Holt's possible health problems are at least as acceptable for inclusion as the laughable urban myths about Holt being abducted by UFOs and the like.

OK, so I'm a bitch - you'll have to get used to that. I am however a very well-informed bitch. Some points in reply.
 * He who writes without access to his references is asking for trouble and will usually get it.
 * This is a biographical article about Harold Holt. It is not an essay on everything that happened in Australia and the world in the 20 years either side of his prime ministership. A few sentences of context, on Vietnam for example, may be justified, but not whole paragraphs of general history. You obviously know this topic well and I encourage you to write History of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War if no-one has already done so. But not here.
 * No, events after Holt's death are not relevant. Maybe a general sentence to the effect that his death led to a period of instability in the Liberal Party would be justified, but a huge chunk out of History of the Liberal Party of Australia (another article awaiting your attention) is not. After all, where does this stop? If the 1972 election is relevant, why not 1975, or 1983?
 * I don't make any apologies for deleting you many statements of opinion - calling Menzies "fawning" and an autocrat, etc. If you can cite a source on this points (and if they are relevant), that is one thing (eg Manning Clark called Menzies "a fawning autocrat", History of Australia, Vol VI, 4765): simply stating them as facts is not.
 * I may have over-reacted on Whitlam, but I am very tired of endless Whitlam-gush at Wikipedia (and I speak as an ALP member and admirer of the Great Man). I don't now remember what you said, but I thought it overstepped the mark.
 * Using Reid as a reference is probably OK, provided his deficiencies are acknowledged. Simply recycling his opinions as facts is not OK. He may have been the Dean of the Gallery and all, but that is no guarantee of professional probity (see Alan Ramsey). In his case he was a hired hatchet-man, about as reliable as a source as Glen Milne.
 * There has recently been a new biography of Holt. I suggest you read it and then rewrite this article from scratch as a properly researched piece of history. That would be doing Wikipedia a service. Cheers Adam 10:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1966 general election record majority
Compare this:
 * The transfer of power from Menzies to Holt in February 1966 was unproblematic, and at the federal election later that year the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed Holt, re-electing the Holt-McEwen Coalition government with 56% of the two party preferred vote. As of 2007, this stands as the greatest winning margin at a federal election in Australian political history.

with this:


 * The Coalition scored a stunning victory over the ALP, winning many former ALP seats and sweeping back into power with (at the time) the largest parliamentary majority since Federation.

Is it still the greatest majority since Federation? I thought that Fraser did better in 1975. In any case, one of these sentences will need to be changed. -- JackofOz 08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional cites sought
tag was added by User :Johnfos on 4 November. I have asked the user to be more specific rather than the blanket request given that there are references at the bottom of the article - mainly books plus also the archives web site. In line citations aren't mandatory but wil be added for any fact that is challenged. I can't see anything out of the common knowledge domain in the article at present.--Golden Wattle talk 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Filling in red links
There's a couple of red links scattered through, which nevers looks good in an article looking for FA/GA status. I'm going to throw together an article on Charles ("Ceb") Barnes, so at least there is an article on each member of Holt's first ministry and then see what others I can do. --Roisterer (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory categories
Harold Holt is currently in Category:Disappeared people and Category:1967 deaths. However, disappeared people is a wikipedia BLP maintainence category, only for those people whose subsequent fate is unknown (ie, we don't know whether the person is alive or dead) - and it explicitly states that it is contradictory with the dead people categories. So either disappeared people goes, or 1967 deaths goes.

The fact that Holt would be/is almost 100 years old isn't a factor as far as BLP goes - the yardstick is 123 years. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Still in the contradictory categories. Andjam (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Questions: 1) Has he been declared legally dead? 2) Can you point out where exactly you see the contradiction of Category:Disappeared people. What I see is that the category is "for people who went missing and whose subsequent fate remains a mystery" which wouldn't be in contradiction with being declared dead at a certain point. Our internal maintenance criteria are a secondary problem as the cats are mostly for the readers.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With regards to 2), it is referring to those whose current fate is a mystery (hence the reference in the category to excluding people born pre-1885). Andjam (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While not particular concerned by the possible contradiction of using both categories at the same time myself, reading the article on Holt he is presumed dead drowning which isn't exactly what "a person who has disappeared for no known reason" refers to. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely the Victorian Coroner (as in this reference in the article) is a WP:Reliable Source. I say we should follow his lead and declare Holt a 1967 death. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Kick him when he's down
I've removed the following:
 * ''In terms of party politics, the most significant feature is that it marked the beginning of an unprecedented period of internal turmoil for the Liberals and a rapid decline in the party's electoral fortunes. For twenty-two years, from its founding in 1944 to his retirement in 1966, the Liberal Party had had only one leader – Robert Menzies. After his retirement, the party had three leaders in the six years between 1966 and 1972; in December 1972 the Coalition's 23-year hold on power ended with a resounding electoral loss to the ALP under Gough Whitlam."

This editorialising is irrelevant to Holt's career. It implies that he was responsible for the woes of the Liberal Party after his death. How careless of him to die.

The transition of power from Menzies to Holt was without any conflict. No general election loss, no partyroom brawl - an event almost unique in Australian political history. During his tenure, he was well-liked and respected. The voters overwhelmingly approved his government at the only election he faced as Prime Minister. For Wikipedia to say that "the most significant feature" of his time was to spark turmoil and decline is misleading and mischevious. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pete, after chuckling at your delightfully inflammatory heading (are you related to Miranda Devine?) I'm restoring that paragraph, with a minor edit.


 * I respectfully disagree with your opinion and I think you are enforcing your own prejudices here. I had no intention of misleading or being mischievous, and I do not think that this paragraph is guilty of any such thing. You have evidently failed to register that it is an observation about the general significance of Holt's tenure as leader in terms of party politics from then on.


 * I simply stated that Holt's Prime Minister-ship marked the beginning of a period of unprecedented turmoil for the Libs and the Coalition, and I maintain that the events undeniably support this assertion. The Coalition ruled virtually unchallenged for over 20 years under Menzies, but after his retirement they had three leaders in six years and they were roundly defeated in the 1972 election, largely because of the internal strife that flared up after Holt's unexpected death. (I personally think it's quite likely Holt would have been toppled before then, had he survived, but that's just my view.) As the article states, the key problem was that there was no effective line of succession behind Holt, and when McEwen unexpectedly took McMahon out of the running, it threw the party's plans into disarray, forcing them to select the "wild card" candidate Gorton, who had nothing like the support that Holt enjoyed when he took over.


 * Your complaint about Holt's accession is frankly silly. Of course he took over unopposed -- he was Menzies' chosen successor and it had been effectively set in stone for years -- how could it have been otherwise? Anyway, this exact point is clearly stated in just these terms elsewhere in the article, so what are you grizzling about?


 * Let's also remember that the 1966 election was held less than a year after Holt took over, and while that's slightly outside the traditional "honeymoon period" it was still *before* the major controversies of 1967, which did significantly dent Holt's profile ... and let's not forget that the Coalition got their arses kicked in the subsequent Senate election.


 * IMO I did not imply or suggest that Holt was "personally" responsible for any of this (whatever that means?) -- but in fact as PM and party leader, isn't he *supposed* to be responsible for everything that happens under his leadership? However, as I mention in the article, there *is* a significant 'personality' aspect to this question, and it can be supported with reference to commentators such as Tom Frame and Alan Reid. Both opined that Holt's "niceness" was increasingly perceived as weakness by his party colleagues, and there was clearly a growing concern within the Libs that Holt was not willing to make tough decisions (c.f. his controversial decision not to sack Nixon over the VIP planes affair). He also came under increasing pressure in parliament after Whitlam became ALP leader (and there can surely be little doubt that Whitlam was a far superior parliamentary performer, whatever you think of his politics); allied to this, Holt was starting to make serious mistakes during 1967 -- e.g. his foolish interruption of St John's maiden speech, which was widely seen as a serious breach of parliamentary protocol -- and the subsequent embarrassing reversal of Holt's decision not to have another inquiry into the Voyager affair.


 * Although it's outside the scope of the particular paragraph in question, Holt's "personal issues" did have a great bearing on his career as PM. His health, canvassed elsewhere in the article, is a very significant matter. There was evidently growing concern within the party about it and this is supported by the known facts about his illness and injuries, and his use of opiates and other strong painkillers. Take a look at Holt's briefcase, which is on display in the foyer at the National Archives in Canberra -- the pill bottles and foil packets of painkillers are still in there, for all to see. I suggest to you that there would be a major crisis today if it was revealed that Kevin Rudd was chronically ill, that he was taking large doses of morphine and codeine and that he had suffered collapses and two near-drowning incidents -- in Holt's case this was all obviously "hushed up" at the time, but how long could this have gone on if, for example, he collapsed in parliament or suffered a heart attack, as some of his colleagues evidently feared might happen?


 * To conclude, I maintain that Holt's unexpected death and the lack of an effective succession unquestionably triggered the damaging 1967 leadership crisis which (however briefly) also threatened a split in the Coalition, and the internal dissent (alongside the growing opposition to the war) contributed greatly to the subsequent decline in the Coalition's electoral fortunes and their ultimate defeat by the ALP in 1972.

- Dunks (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is now really long, far longer than the media attention he ever got at the time. I vaguely remember HH, but remember Ming really well. Holt was just a passing fad with a mouth full of expensive capped teeth.220.240.228.205 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Spouse name
This page lists Zara Kate Dickens, but the link goes to a page with spelling Zara Kate Dickins.

Google cites both, hinting that Dickens is more likely, but I didn't see anything definitive. Perhaps someone more familiar with the situation can fix one or the other.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've always understood it was Dickins. I've edited this page.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Prescription of opiates
I reviewed my father's medical records with Peter Butt for his film the PM IS Missing and Dr Marcus Faunce did not prescribe opitates to Harold Holt prior to his disappearance. The film doesn't suggest this. Marc knew opiates well as he was an excellent palliative care physician, but he also knew that Holt would push his luck physically and continue to strain his shoulder with the masking effect of the morphine. Holt was prescribed the opiates by a Melbourne doctor.Fauncet (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

China

 * In 1983, published a controversial book in which he claimed that Holt had been an agent for the People's Republic of China and that he had been picked up by a Chinese submarine off Portsea and taken to China.[5]

Is there any particular reason for China here, other then geography and the China is evil mentality that persisted then (and er the questionable 'mental faculties' of the author/proposer of this theory)? The article doesn't seem to mention a close connection of HH with China and in fact he seems to have had a close connection to the US and expanded Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war, hardly seeming to be something a Chinese agent would do (well perhaps if it was part of a wider plan but he disappeared before he could do anything major with whatever advantage gained)... But perhaps the theory is more complicated or there's something I'm missing. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This has now been removed, which I object to. It is a famous, though ridiculous, theory. As to your question, I think you're missing the fact that conspiracy theories don't need to make sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should put it back again. Finding sources is pretty easy with Google. Yes, it's gloriously ridiculous and total fantasy, but it is probably the thing most associated with Holt in the minds of the public.--Pete (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There being no objections for a year, I have added it back in.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Holt's collapse and an early plan to install Gorton
I came across an article in The Age from 1969 discussing plans to replace Holt around six months before his death. According to the report, it was commonly believed that senior Liberals were plotting to put Gorton forward because of Holt's drop in popularity, etc. Gorton denied any knowledge. Dudley Erwin said he had indeed participated in such talks, but denied it was part of a plot. They were contingency plans following Holt's collapse in Erwin's office (Speaker Aston and Ainsley Gotto were also there). According to Erwin he, and Holt for that matter, believed the "turn" was a heart attack, so he felt it his duty as whip to plan for HOlt's death or incapacity.

I'm not sure if this should be included or, if so, exactly where or how to best add it. I therefore leave it to more regular editors of this article to decide. -Rrius (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I came across another article, again looking for something else, this one from The Sydney Morning Herald. It was written after Alan Reid's The Gorton Experiment (listed in our article under "Further reading"). In the book, Reid claimed that Gorton "was being groomed" for the top job before Holt's death. In response, Gorton said he told Erwin he would not be part of any plot and if there was a move he would tell Holt and do his best to defeat it. Erwin backed up his comments, which would tend to contradict his earlier statement that there was no attempted plot, merely contingency plans. Gorton's comments appeared in "a Sunday newspaper" on 8 August 1971, so if anyone has access to a database or microfilm, there may be something useful to be gleaned. -Rrius (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's sufficient to note that there was unrest in the party. I've just deleted a paragraph, apparently sourced to Reid, about a meeting between Erwin and Holt that never took place. I think in an encyclopedia article which should concentrate on what did happen, rather than rehashing press gallery speculation about ancient leadership plots.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Normal Succession?
With regard to the succession, the article says:
 * In the normal course of events, Liberal deputy leader and Treasurer William McMahon should have succeeded Holt as both Liberal leader and Prime Minister.

That is not true. It was normal for McEwen as deputy PM to be sworn in as PM. When Lyons died in office, the deputy PM, the Country Party's Earle Page, became PM. Moreover, there are plenty of deputy Liberal leaders that never became leader. The Liberal Party replaces its leaders by party room ballot, not by succession.

However, the article suggests there was an expectation that the deputy PM was going to be bypassed and the deputy Liberal leader sworn in as interim leader. This seems to be abnormal.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Deputy PM position is given to the leader of the junior member of the Coalition doesn't mean that he's the heir apparent. It's not like the American Vice President stepping up and serving out the term. When Menzies retired, the PM job wasn't handed to the (then unofficial) Deputy PM John McEwen. McEwen became PM when Holt drowned (or was picked up by a Chinese sub, take your choice) but that was because the Libs couldn't come up with a leader on the spot, much like the previous time Menzies left the top spot. --Pete (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you're wrong. The Deputy PM automatically steps in. That's why they are called the Deputy. They will also act as PM when the PM is on leave. (Doug Anthony always boasted about running the country from a caravan park.) The party caucus needs to meet to elect a new leader, and they can't do that "on the spot". Normally, there will be time for the party to elect a new leader before the outgoing PM formally resigns, so the Deputy PM will be not need to step in. When a PM dies (or vanishes), however, there isn't time, and the Deputy must step in until the party room can vote. When Lyons died, Page stepped in; when Holt disappeared, McEwen stepped in. When Curtin died, Frank Forde was briefly PM for the same reason.
 * Robert Menzies's first prime ministership was quite different. As discussed on that Talk page, Menzies was faced with disloyalty (in time of war, no less) and decided to resign. The misnamed United Australia Party caucus were unable to decide on a replacement as leader (and hence PM). In order to deal with this unprecedented anomaly, Billy Hughes agreed to serve as UAP leader, and the Country Party's Arthur Fadden became PM. A few months later, Curtin then engineered a vote of non-confidence and became PM. At the next election, the Coalition was smashed. The UAP collapsed, and Menzies rebuilt it as the Liberal Party and returned as party leader.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, Jack is correct: the sentence is misleading. In fact the whole section, which implies that McEwen made his famous statement about never serving under McMahon on 18 December, when I can find evidence of no such thing. It also implies that the Liberals could conceivably have organised a leadership ballot in a single day, which I find unlikely. Of course, should hard evidence for this turn up (I don't have the biographies for any of the key players in front of me and so am relying on Trove and ADB), that would be a different matter. Frickeg (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I removed that sentence back in January. I have amended the section further today. I think we need clarification of when McEwen said that, but it certainly doesn't have any bearing on the Deputy PM becoming interim PM.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course the Deputy PM becomes Acting PM in the circumstances named above - sudden death or planned (but temporary) absence. I raised the point about Menzies in 1967 because McEwen didn't become PM when Menzies left. Holt did. There was no Acting PM when Menzies left. In the normal course of events, McEwen wouldn't have become Prime Minister, because the normal course of events is for the PM to be rolled within his own party, or (in the case of Menzies) to arrange a successor. The Deputy PM normally doesn't get a look in. Except maybe, for the case of Gillard taking over from Rudd, but she got the job because she challenged, not because she was Deputy PM. --Pete (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, the Deputy PM actually becomes PM in the case of death, but only acting PM in the case of leave. In any case, the article originally said in the "normal" course of events McMahon "should" have succeeded Holt. This is false. But this is now dealt with. I have just amended the article again based on information from the National Archives. I presume this is accurate, though the source incorrectly calls McMahon the Deputy PM at one point. Why can't everyone be as accurate as Wikipedia?!--Jack Upland (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

McEwen did not hold the title "Deputy Prime Minister" until the Gorton government. Prior to this the formal title had not been used at all in Australia although it may have had some informal currency. Secondly Australia inherited a lot of the British conventions including the Crown Prerogative that the selection of the PM is at the Crown's or their representative's pleasure and is not predetermined with formal heir apparants and automatic successions, and whatever ego boosting title they may hold does not change that (often new DPMs have their egos publicly deflated on this precise point). The permanent use of the title "Deputy Prime Minister" in Australia from 1968 onwards may have altered the position but there have been no vacancies since to test it. (The use of leadership elections by parties has diminished the Crown's choice - mainly to the Crown's relief! - but in emergency circumstances they still have to pick someone). I question the reliability of the PM mini-bios on the National Archives site - I can't see who actually wrote them and there are a number of obvious errors across the entries - for instance the entry on Fadden can't make up its mind if the UAP was led by Menzies or Hughes whilst he was PM. The McEwan entry misdate a Senate election and there's the widespread use of the term "deputy Prime Minister" as though it was an official term at the time. We really need to break the more indepth biographies and histories on this one. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree we need better sources, but McEwen's succession followed a pattern set by Page and Forde on the deaths of Lyons and Curtin. It also followed the pattern set by Doug Anthony when Menzies was on holidays etc.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be a moot point now, but I suggest that a "normal succession" is not one imposed by sudden death. The replacement of Menzies by Holt with no intervening term as PM by McEwen as Deputy PM is more the thing. Likewise when McMahon replaced Gorton, the Deputy PM at the time (was it still McEwen?) did not get appointed as PM. A normal succession would be a Liberal PM succeeds a Liberal PM. --Pete (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Is the following proper in this biography:


 * Also on the beach was Holt's lover of the time, Marjorie Gillespie.  13:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I consider the Sydney Daily Telegraph's "Sydney Confidential" gossip columns to be of a tabloid nature at best, and as such estopped by Wikipedia policy, and conveying pure gossip by any standards at all. Collect (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Annette Sharp" is specifically a self-described "gossip columnist" by the way. ( ""Hello. I'm Annette Sharp and I am a gossip columnist."}  Collect (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about that particular source, but the Bulletin and at least two books by political journalist Mungo MacCallum also refer to Gillespie as his mistress. See this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Try  from your imputed list: Gillespie called it an "emotional affair based on 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect"  which seems rather more platonic than mistressy. Sorry - sensationalist tabloidism to present here as a "mistress" who was not even staying at the same house. Collect (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I just bought The Life and Death of Harold Holt by the very not-tabloid Tom Frame.

This is what he says about Gillespie and Holt as potential lovers:

p277:

"In a television documentary entitled The Harold Holt Mystery screened in 1985, Marjorie Gillespie commented rather enigmatically that Holt 'put himself in a situation where he was almost certain to die'. This is despite rejecting suicide as a possibility when she was interviewed in 1968. She also revealed in 1988 that she was "Harold Holt's lover", a claim repeated in several magazines and newspapers. Simon Warrender had previously questioned Marjorie Gillespie about her relationship with Holt.


 * I referred to constant rumours since the Cheviot tragedy that she and Harold were having an affair. Imprudently, she did not deny the rumours. 'Of course, Simon', she said, 'what is your interpretation of an affair?'. I told her. She said that there were various types of affairs - intimate affairs and sordid affairs and emotional affairs. Herds with Harold, she said, was an emotional affair based on mutual admiration and respect."

p276

[quoting Edward St John] "But was it, rather, an act of bravado in front of a woman whom he was courting? It's still a bit of a mystery to me, as I think it is to most people."

p304

"The number and names of the women with whom he had intimate relationships remains unclear. Zara's outburst that her husband had scores of women over the years was probably designed to humiliate Marjorie Gillespie and her assertion that she was special, more than anything else. It seems that these relationships were largely therapeutic. He explained to one Cabinet colleague that he had someone to whom he was very close in Canberra because it made parliamentary sittings easier to endure. He was not, however, attempting to exclude infidelity."

p305

"Unfortunately, Zara's last years were marked by personal bitterness. In early 1988, she launched an attack on Marjorie Gillespie in the Sydney Morning Herald after Gillespie claimed that Harold was planning to leave Zara for her. This led Zara to reveal that Holt had had a number of lovers around Australia and overseas."

I have no particular opinion on what to say here, I'm just including the context because I happened to have a very reliable source on my shelf. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems well sourced and worthy of inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have found an article in the Smithsonian magazine that cites various books, the official report, and - shucks! - the internet articles brought up in this discussion. Problem solved, can we move on? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's time this was brought to a holt.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Badumm-tshh! EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Smithsonian source
Is nice but does not support use of "lover" as statement of fact, and mentions Gillespie only in the context of some people who suggested the death was faked so that Holt could run off with her. It appears, however, that his death was not faked. Collect (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a whole lot more evidence for "lover" than that Holt's death was faked so that Holt could run off with her. I even quoted the relevant bits of the Frame biography of Holt above. I am not particularly bothered how this article refers to Marjorie Gillespie (there are various ways that evidence could be summarised and I am not invested in any of them), but "Also on the beach was Marjorie Gillespie, and some suspected Holt faked his death in order to run away with her" is about the most abjectly silly way I could imagine to reference it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. There has just been an RfC on this. Maybe we could add more sources on this point, but the Smithsonian article says: "It was also widely believed that Holt had been having an affair with Marjorie Gillespie. (That much was true; Zara Holt’s memoirs confirmed that he had had a number of extramarital affairs, and years later Gillespie acknowledged that she’d had a long relationship with him.)" The statement is well-sourced, and relevant, and you have to respect the RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

using a source to make a claim not backed by the source
I worded the Marjorie Gillespie line to precisely conform with the Smithsonian source. It is a violation of WP:RS to use a source which does not back the claim it is used for. If Gillespie is alive, then it also violates WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read each and every source cited by the Smithsonian? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the source given for the claim in its entirety - which is what Wikipedia requires. Sources which do not back the claims made for them are improper.  And I am required to post concerning any BLP or RS issue for reasons which are absolutely irrelevant here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth Marjorie Pamela Gillespie died in 2012. Why are you continuing to start new discussions on the same topic?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True - but others including her husband etc. appear to be quite alive. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty more (and more reliable and detailed) sources than the Smithsonian about the nature of Gillespie's relationship with Holt, and that you seem insistent on both ignoring them and adding laughable (and not nearly so well sourced) conspiracy theories to the article suggests that, whatever your eclectic angle here, it isn't either a BLP or an RS concern. Summarise the sources, stop adding random conspiracy theories, and this dispute ceases to exist. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The source actually cited uses the term "rumour" yet you insist on edit war to state that she was Holt's lover in Wikipedia's voice.  Even when you say my wording was ok -- you go back to the wording which violates policy.  If you find my wording ok, then simply use the wording supported by the source.  You are violating the letter and spirit of WP:RS in misusing Wikipedia's voice to make a claim of "fact" not made as "fact" in the source.  Collect (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignoring the previous discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "the source". There are many sources. You are obsessed with one source, which is way less comprehensive and less reliable than the sources everyone else here are working from. I have made clear that I am not particularly fussed how one summarises the sources about the relationship between Holt and Gillespie (which could reasonably be worded any number of ways because there is quite a lot written about it, probably more than can be said as succinctly as in any version of this article so far), but I am going to resist any silliness to ditch the actually-sourced-to-reliable-sources bits and add fantastical conspiracy theories in their place. I edit conflicted with Jack, but yes, you're ignoring more reliable and detailed sources than the one you're obsessed with to the point where it's getting a bit bizarre. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(od) When we cite a source ("the source") and that source does not explicitly back up the claim for which it is used, that source is improperly used. As for my use of "rumoured" as being a "fantastical conspiracy theory" - that part of your post is so far off the mark as to render me lying on the floor. And since I was not the one who inserted the Smithsonian source, I damn well not "obsessed" with it. The prior source was from a self-described "gossip column" which failed WP:RS in a nanosecond. If you have a substantial reliable source staing that Hold and Gillespie were proven to be "lovers" then it is up to you to provide it. So far, all you can show is "rumoured" which I am fine with. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We have abundant evidence as to the nature of their relationship in Tom Frame's biography and Zara Holt's memoirs, and negligible reliable evidence for your determined claim about them running off together. Since the Frame book was explicitly quoted on this very page since the "gossip column" you just tried to use to justify your trolling, yeah, sorry, that effort gets an F. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I made no such "claim" at all I fear you are off the deep end -- the Smithsonian Magazine mentions Gillespie and the rumours about faking a death.  If we use a source, we use what the source says and not wrench it out of the context of the source.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources confirm Gillespie was his lover. It has been User:Collect vs. formed consensus for the past two discussions. Move to close please.
As stated in the section heading. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec)You ought not use section titles to attack other editors - and the Smithsonian source appears to back the use of "rumoured" so please try noting that using any source to support a claim not made specifically in the source is against Wikipedia policy. The source so far given supports "rumoured" and that is all the hell we can claim here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it could be worded a bit differently than straight "was his lover", because the detailed sources are a little bit more nuanced than that, and I think it probably warrants a bit of added explanation. But I'm all for moving to close off either removing mention of their relationship completely or the additions of poorly-sourced wacky conspiracy theories. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The "wacky conspiracy theory" is actually in the Smithsonian Magazine article used as a source - we do not use "one line" from a source and avoid mentioning the actual context of that line in the source, else we would be intellectually dishonest. Collect (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not engaging any further until you acknowledge the existence of every other source referred to on this page. Chalk up to trolling, move to close, can hash out the details of how we refer to their relationship when we're not dealing with rubbish trolling. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

,, let's put this one out of its misery. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

{{u}Sfarney}} etc. as well while you are WP:CANVASSing by ping. The fact is we can not make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice where the source does not make it as a clear claim of fact. The new source given states Gillespie denied having any "intimate" affair. And that denial is in the source which is cited as proving she did have an intimate affair. All we need to do is say "rumoured" and not make the claim of the "intimate affair" being a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:, you have been fighting against every other editor who has chimed into this discussion. That is not an attack, that is a statement of fact. Now, to the point: I have found and added another source, this time from a book published by the Australian National University. So... if there are no more objections, someone please put in the close tags. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to obey the damn non-negotiable Wikipedia policies.  Like WP:RS and WP:NPOV.   Meanwhile attacking any editor in a section title is a violation of policy.   I point out below the source you give states that she denied an "intimate" or "sordid" affair.  Now your definition of lover may include people who are not "intimate" but I think most would not agree. See WP:TPNO, WP:TPYES, etc.    Clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 00:27, 1 February 2016
 * Stating a fact about a lone discussion warrior against every other editor is by no means an attack. Altering other people's comments, however, is a violation of policy, WP:TPO. Policy shopping is also a violation of policy, WP:SHOPPING (really, accusing editors of canvassing by simply pinging those who have been already involved in this discussion?). Pretending not to understand everyone else is a violation of policy, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Misusing policy in a way that has long surpassed the definition of good faith use is a violation of policy, WP:POINT. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Inside the Canberra Press Gallery: Life in the Wedding Cake of Old Parliament House
As a source.

The salient quote on page 139 is that Gillespie stated she and Holt had "(an emotional affair based on) 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect'"

In short - no claim of wonderful physical sex befitting "lovers" as such unless you have a strange concept of orgasmic sex being based on "intellectual admiration." What the source would support is that "Gillespie stated she had an affair based on 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect',"   and that her "affair" was neither "intimate" nor "sordid."

That source, in fact, makes no claim of "lover" in the usual sense of the word in English of being "sex partner" at all. And I would think a "sex partner" would generally qualify as "intimate" which Gillespie clearly denied. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ignore the other sources as much as you want. I will not engage (and continue to revert) anyone who refuses to read reliable sources and obsesses about trivial ones or quotes reliable ones out of context, even when they're quoted to him on full, for the purposes of trolling real editors and adding poorly sourced, BLP-violating conspiracy theories. If you want to read the damn sources and discuss appropriate wording, then you might actually find an audience here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read all the damn sources provided - and this last one had been given before, and I quoted it before, and it still says the same damn things it said before. It has not changed at all.  And if you wish to argue that an affair which was denied to be intimate by the 'lover'  was "intimate", then damn well find a source making that as a claim of fact.  So far, the sources actually given support "rumour" but nothing much else at all. Collect (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The books of Tom Frame and Zara Holt. You continue to ignore the quoted parts of the former on this page, otherwise you'd know "denied to be intimate by the lover" is patent bullshit. Like, what do you hope to achieve by citing unreliable sources and out of context quotes when you've got authoritative book sources to compare them to? Is annoying a bunch of dedicated Wikipedia editors for shits and giggles that fun? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "She had also revealed in 1988 that she was 'Harold Holt's lover'—a claim repeated in several magazines and newspapers." This is the quote from the ANU source. For the love of God, please release us from this tireless escapade. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear you missed the elucidation which was then given -- which said she denied any "intimate" relationship. Amazingly enough, it immediately follows the words you find -- and generally speaking, when such an elucidation is made, it is the elucidation which should be used.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I fear you missed the fact that the quote is "lover", not "intimate". Your personal understanding or the lack thereof is irrelevant here. Besides, you have already been warned about your own multiple policy violations and abuse. You have surpassed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT a long while ago. Take it to a board if you must, but THIS IS OVER. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. And the other editor at RS/N - agreed with me about the source. Collect (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Second request to cease all further attempts at disputing the Gillespie issue
As stated in the heading. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There seems a clear consensus here. I understand that Collect doesn't want the topic mentioned, but the consensus is in favour of including it. There are multiple sources and the issue seems notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Do we need an uninvolved party to place the close tags or can we do it ourselves? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And again -- where policy is involved, WP:CONSENSUS says we must adhere to policy. In the case at hand, misuse of sources is, indeed, a policy violation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There will be no more of this nonsense. I kindly advise you to take a break from this page. There is literally not a single editor that agrees with you here. G'day. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Has it occurred to you that policies are not just suggestions Your apparent threat is inane here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no threat. You have exhausted this RfC. You requested more opinions and they all disagree with you. Good faith is far behind you at this point. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC PS
Wikipedia at its worst. The closure had little relation to the discussion and was a reward for bad behaviour.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the closing argument goes directly against consensus of the discussion and reeks of POV. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Tabloid tittle-tattle". The PM went missing. I think it's notable who was there.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Context suggests that comment was about the lover bit, not her presence. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You can appeal any RfC close by any admin at WP:ANI. That said, this is Wikipedia: we don't do vote counting, we weight the strength of arguments. That's by design. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, we weigh the arguments. All the arguments, all of the evidence - including Gillespie's own admission to being "Harold Holt's lover" (the closing argument denies that quote altogether), as well as the quotes by several people who were close to Holt. The closing should be done in a highly WP:NPOV fashion, and on those grounds alone it should be disqualified, as the closing editor made it abundantly clear that they see it as "tabloid tittle-tattle" (in spite of the subject being covered by multiple notable people) and that they would be happy if the item were removed altogether. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't think an independent admin weighing the arguments might be less susceptible to confirmation bias than a determined proponent of one side weighing up their own arguments? Hmmm? Anyway, I have told you where to go if you want to challenge the close. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , you didn't even read the discussion. I quote from what you said "even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here" - uh, she did it incredibly prominently in the most respected broadsheet newspaper in the country. I didn't challenge it because the result in the article wasn't unreasonable, but your closing rant was patently ridiculous, and if your idea of "weighing the arguments" involves skimming over most of the quoted sources because you can't be bothered, you should find a better use of your time on Wikipedia. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and just before I lose it in my browser-history, for the particularly reading-avoidant: even Zara Holt said Gillespie and Holt had an affair. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An "affair" sans being "intimate" at all, and based on intellectual values? And this becomes "lover" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice?   Sorry - by that token a robot could be a "lover" of another robot .  The use appears to be closer to that of a "wine lover" than of a "sexual lover."   Therein lies the root of the problem - and why using "rumoured" is as far as we can go. Collect (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't really get the meaning of citation at all, do you? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, obsess about just how much you can take one tabloid article out of context some more so you can justify ignoring the existence of Holt's biography, Zara Holt's memoirs, the entire coverage of the Sydney Morning Herald over many years and the Australian Dictionary of Biography. This is either trolling or on some bizarre ideological quest that has absolutely nothing to do with either facts or sources: there's no rational explanation for your desire to keep pretending every source I've referred to here does not exist and acting like we're talking into the abyss every time we bring them up. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Once more onto the beach
Regardless of the discussion above, the text needs to be reworked. According to the Australian Dictionary of Biography:


 * On the morning of Sunday 17 December 1967 he [Holt] collected a neighbour Marjorie Gillespie, her daughter and two young men, and together they watched the lone English yachtsman (Sir) Alec Rose sail through the Heads. The party then went to Cheviot Beach where Holt changed into his swimming trunks, said that he knew the beach like the back of his hand, and, soon after midday, entered what everyone later agreed was a fierce and high surf.

The Smithsonian article agrees, identifying the young men as the daughter, Vyner's boyfriend, Martin Simpson, and Alan Stewart. However, this article identifies Holt's companions as "Christopher Anderson, Jan Lee, and George Illson and his two bodyguards", mysteriously saying that Marjorie Gillespie was "also on the beach".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Good catch. That should be an uncontroversial fix. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. The incident is trivia unless one wishes to give an implication that the people were in some way involved in the disappearance.  Such a deliberate implication in Wikipedia's voice would need much stronger sourcing than has been given.  And since we have Gillespie's own words stating that the affair was not 'intimate' , we would be grossly in violation of Wikipedia policies to imply otherwise.  Guy has this one right. Collect (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And now you're not reading this article. The article already mentions all the people on the beach with Holt, and has completely uncontroversially for eight years; it just weirdly tacks Gillespie on the end in a way that makes no sense. You're just reflexively both opposing anything Jack mentions, and refusing to read absolutely anything referred to by anyone who disagrees with you. Like, this is not a change to the facts of the article - it's a grammatical change, and you're still fighting him because you couldn't be bothered reading the article you're supposed to be concerned about. This is ridiculous. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:AGF and note that my positions here have been solidly grounded in Wikipedia policy. Attacking me for following the policies set forth in Wikipedia is not actually going to impress anyone at all. Collect (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have to be trolling. Happy to continue the conversation if you at any point feel like reading what either of us said rather than reflexively stirring shit for shits and giggles. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make it clear: This is about the facts in the article! The article states (without a source) that the party that went to the beach consisted of Holt, "Christopher Anderson, Jan Lee, and George Illson and his two bodyguards". Whereas the ADB and the Smithsonian give a different group: Holt, Marjorie G, Vyner, Simpson, and Stewart. See also:,. It appears to be a weird error, unless someone with other sources can shed some light on it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Having thought about it, and checked Frame, I've come to the conclusion that the reference to "Christopher Anderson, Jan Lee, and George Illson and his two bodyguards" is a long-standing hoax. I have amended the text accordingly. I have also made other corrections to the text (though it could do with some more work). For example, according to Frame's detailed account, the others did not beg Holt not to go into the surf. I've also removed the references to his "friends". Marjorie was obviously his friend, but there's no indication that he'd even met the others before. (According to Frame, Stewart was a house guest of the Gillespies.) The question of who was on the beach does seem to be notable. If he did have bodyguards, they might have been able to rescue him. As it happened none of the others were strong swimmers. I also guess bodyguards would have been able to radio for help, whereas by Frame's account it appears it took about an hour for police to be contacted. Also, it has been suggested that Holt was trying to impress his "mates". In fact, there was no one on the beach who would normally be described like that.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It has definitely been suggested that Holt at least may have been trying to impress Gillespie (see the Edward St John quote in Frame), but otherwise that looks like a really good catch. Checking the relevant bits of my copy of Frame also makes me come to the same conclusion. Ugh, what a mess. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it has been suggested that he was trying to impress Marjorie Gillespie, which again reinforces the importance of clarifying who was on the beach. I said that this was Wikipedia at its worst, but I didn't realise how bad it was. But at least we have now corrected something that was in the text for 8 years, and bizarrely unnoticed in all that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well done. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This brings to mind the larger problem that massive swathes of this article still lack inline sources, and that is something that needs to change considering we've found a long-running hoax in the text. I am really not enthusiastic about doing it because the Menzies-Holt-etc. era isn't really my thing but don't mind helping a little bit if someone wants to give it a go. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, unfortunately. As I said, while removing the hoax, I casually noticed a few more errors about his disappearance. To give another example, the text said that within a "short time" a large rescue operation was launched. Well, as far as I can see from Frame, no rescue attempt at all occurred till more than an hour after. If someone is drowning, that's far too late. Maybe this inaccuracy is concentrated around the disappearance, which is Holt's most famous moment, but I would treat the whole article with scepticism.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, me too. There needs to be a stronger tag than the refimprove one for "article is badly sourced and questionable" but nothing in Twinkle stands out. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The RfC close above
was clear -- the result is that the RfC determined that we can not call Gillespie Holt's "lover" as a statement of fact. We can not thumb our noses at the close by Guy - if anyone demurs, they should use the normal processes for appeal.

"reported lover" is making a statement of fact

"rumoured lover" states that the claim is a rumour, and is not a statement of fact.

Is there any reason for this belief that we should, after having an RfC, totally ignore the result as stated in its close by an uninvolved administrator? Collect (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think "reported" means what you think it means. As far as I can see, it means that it has been reported, which is clearly true. The closing statement by Guy did not use the term "rumoured", and I haven't seen any evidence of "rumours" about the relationship. That suggests there was some kind of scandal, but I haven't seen any reference to anything like that. In any case, that RfC seems a bit outdated as it was based around text subject to a long-running hoax. But I don't think anyone is going to stop you from changing "reported" to "rumoured".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As for "reported", what Jack said. I think there is sufficient argument about the matter that we should not refer to their relationship as such as a statement of fact, but "reported" does not do that. It is abundantly obvious that it has been reported as such in many reliable sources. It is less clear what WP:RS a suggestion that "rumoured" best describes this comes from. The details of Guy's close are made murky by the fact he openly based his rationale on an understanding of fact that is objectively untrue: "even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here". (There is no way you could come to that conclusion unless you take the one time she gave a vague answer under press questioning way out of context to the many, many times over the years she gave very direct answers in mainstream, reliable sources.) We should absolutely, as Guy says, "use attribution and to take care not to exceed what is stated by the sources"; we should just do it on what his biography and his wife's memoirs and other similarly-reliable sources have to say rather than what Guy misread in a two-minute skim of the talk page. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "reported lover" is making a statement about reports, which are well sourced from multiple notable citations. In no way, shape or form does it make a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. But hey, none of this is new, as I have merely restated what this discussion - along with its myriad predecessors - has already established as consensus. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion is completely surreal. In all these paragraphs of discussion, we have been completely unable to get either Collect or Guy to actually acknowledge that Harold Holt's biography or Zara Holt's memoirs even exist, let alone address their contents. This is even before you have to breathe a word about anything less reliable than plainly unimpeachable books, like how every article in the Sydney Morning Herald I can find that refers to Gillespie calls her Holt's lover without ambiguity. It's like Collect and Guy are having a parallel discussion about their feelings about adultery while acting like those of us trying to get the article sourced reliably are talking in Mandarin. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the Australian Dictionary of Biography (hardly a tabloid source) describes her as Holt's lover (but at the end of the article). Also, this article mentions extramarital affairs under "Early life".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently the Australian Dictionary of Biography is not a reliable source, according to Collect. At what point do we stop assuming any kind of good faith here? If he's going to revert-war and refuse to engage with any kind of source whatsoever besides that one tabloid article that he's obsessed with, then he needs to be blocked for trolling. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For anyone else interested, Collect has quite a block log and is currently under arbitration enforcement restrictions and a topic ban for the entirety of US politics for similar behaviour to that displayed here. If he consists on revert-warring based on one tabloid article, I feel like we should request that topic ban be extended, because it's apparent the problem is not limited to the US - it seems pretty obvious (absent even a token attempt at good-faith discussion) that he's merely decided to redirect his energies towards Australian politics instead. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For anyone who is interested, some editors seem to think that attacking others is a good idea. The RfC close is above - and you seem to think that by attacking me that you become "right".  BS at best, and a gross abuse of the Wikipedia Terms of Use for sure.    Collect (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If, at any point, you feel like discussing what reliable sources have to say about this subject, starting with Holt's biographer and Holt's wife, then going through mainstream press coverage over many years, feel free. If that's not your thing and you'd prefer to utterly ignore anything ever written about it in reliable sources and engage in the behaviour that got you topic banned the first time, then it's not an attack - it's just the reality and it demonstrates that the problem was not limited to the US. The choice is yours, and the horse hasn't bolted on you actually deciding to participate in this discussion in good faith and acknowledge the reliable sources that exist. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * An attack is aimed at the editor. We are discussing your editing patterns, specifically how those patterns earned you a topic ban. Your part in endlessly continuing the discussions on this talk page and wherever else you felt like WP:CANVASSING to get your way - indicates that seeking a broader topic ban may be necessary for all of us to continue with our lives, rather than indulge the apparently obsessive need to prevail at all cost. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

ADB
Site specifically states:


 * No reliance should be made by a user of the material, information or publication accessed via this site.

Seems clear.

Meanwhile, how in hell is that issue related to edit warring "rumoured" into "reported" where the ADB is not involved in that wording? That revert looks like the editor is absolutely certain that a person who specifically denied any "intimate affair" is nonetheless a "lover" in Wikipedia's voice. I find that edit war mentality here to be troubling as it is absolutely contrary to the close of the RfC. If one wishes to dispute a close, this is sure the wrong way to do it. Go to WP:AN/I if you wish - but simply making sure the RfC is ignored is contrary to policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * She did not "specifically deny" any "intimate affair". She repeatedly and loudly, in many and varied forums, over a number of decades, said she did have one. Which is abundantly obvious from Holt's biography, and Zara Holt's memoirs, and the Sydney Morning Herald. And the ADB - which, disclaimer aside, is alone a much more reliable source than either your tabloid article or your Smithsonian article, being written by academic historians specialising in their particular area. On one occasion, under media questioning, she gave an ambiguous answer, in contrast to every other answer she gave, which is why it is not unreasonable to be less certain than say, the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia's most reputable broadsheet - over many articles and years - and say "reported". The RfC was not ignored - everyone else who responded to the RfC apart from you and Guy responded based their responses on the above sources, while you and Guy had to resort to pretending all of those - all of them - did not exist in order to maintain that position. Guy has an excuse - he was completely unfamiliar with the topic, was a bit overeager in throwing his weight around, didn't bother reading the discussion, and as a result made a demonstratably wrong statement of fact to justify said. It's possible to ignore the existence of widespread print coverage of an issue of fact if you skim through a discussion page in two minutes: it is not when you repeatedly pretend you haven't been alerted to their existence while reverting the editors doing so. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For the other editors reading, this dispute has now - and thankfully - been raised at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I think it's important we go through proper process and formally challenge Guy's bizarre close, and I've also personally raised the issue of extending Collect's topic ban, as I feel it is well and truly warranted at this point. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Note source:
 * I referred to constant rumours since the Cheviot tragedy that she and Harold were having an affair. Imprudently, she did not deny the rumours. 'Of course, Simon', she said, 'what is your interpretation of an affair?'. I told her. She said that there were various types of affairs - intimate affairs and sordid affairs and emotional affairs. Hers with Harold, she said, was an emotional affair based on mutual admiration and respect. 

Which seems clear - she specifically did not say she had any "intimate" or "sordid" affair but "an emotional affair based on mutual admiration and respect." The source uses the word "rumour" and her definition seems to be more one of Platonic love than anything else. Again the source uses the word 'rumour' . Collect (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Collect, do you realise that this is the first time you've actually engaged with most of the sources I've been referring to instead of that bloody Smithsonian article? You actually raise a critical point there, and one which I'd overlooked: the Simon Warrender interview is not dated in Frame, and the references to it in two other books that show up in Google copy Frame literally word-for-word in referring to it. I had read Frame as stating that the Warrender interview had happened closer to the time of Holt's death, and the 1988 coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald as explicitly contradicting that; however, you're right - it isn't clear, and if the Warrender interview was in the 1980s it changes the context of that text considerably. I think it's being overly cautious compared to modern sources (as stated before, among others, the Sydney Morning Herald and ADB share no such concern), however personally I'm a stickler for getting details right and short of having access to what exactly Gillespie said in 1988, when Warrender was interviewed, or to what extent (beyond the widely quoted bit) Zara Holt clarified details about the nature of their affair, it's something on which I'm okay with going with "rumoured". The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly mentioned the sources. Saying as a slur "this is the first time" does not impress me as I have made the same points now a few times on this very page - yet only now do you appear to have actually read them.  Another source carefully uses "alleged" etc.  All of the best sources are extremely carefully worded to avoid making "statements if fact" that Gillespie and Holt were carnal lovers.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You've very passionately referred to one quote out of context (slash, in the Smithsonian context which no one was basing their conclusions off anyway), which is why you wound up in such an argument. This is the first time I've actually been able to get you to discuss (as you put it) "all of the best sources" in context - and surprise, you actually had something of a point, which we could have gotten to do days ago if you'd done that as opposed to ignoring the books I and others were working from and gleefully yelling at people instead. I still think other WP:RS point to it being an unnecessarily cautious version, but in context you did convince me that there was sufficient doubt that your view was an valid and not unreasonable interpretation of those sources, and that's enough for me to not bother arguing a point this trivial. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I initially dealt with the Smithsonian Mag because the self-described gossip column which was used as the first source stank. The editor who wanted to make sure we all knew there was a sexual affair then presented that source - which I demonstrated did not support the deliberate implication sought by an editor.    Cheers - but I am glad you now recognize that we should not in any way say there was an sex affair in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Frame's quotation from Simon Warrender comes from Warrender's book, Score of Years, published in 1973. The quotation actually says, "Impudently", not "Imprudently"! And she didn't deny the rumours. Frame himself says that Gillespie "identified herself publicly as Holt's last lover" (p 20) and she "revealed in 1988 that she was 'Harold Holt's lover' " (p 304). The ADB refers to "public disclosures that Marjorie Gillespie had been his lover". This is cherry-picking sources in the extreme. Saying "rumoured lover" is misleading. The rumours were confirmed a long time ago. I think we should just say "lover" because that's what the sources say. But is it worth going through a further administrative process...?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A rumour must be denied to be a rumour - else it becomes a fact?   Really?   Holt was decidedly not a "faithful lover" as his own wife had also been unfaithful in her own prior marriage.  This does not make everyone else automatically unfaithful, however.  Suppose there were a rumour that "George Gnarph" was gay, and that it became "fact" because he saw no reason to address it or sue the rumour-mongers?  The quotations from Gillespie clearly state that she denied any "intimate" affair - and, as far as I can tell,  non-intimate affairs are rarely the stuff of sexual liaisons amok. Collect (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The notion that anything "clearly states" that she "denied any intimate affair" is an abjectly silly interpretation of Frame or anyone else. I think it's a plausible reading of the sources, arguably if one was being a bit obtuse, that they might not have, and this is trivial enough that "a plausible argument by someone who has read the sources" is enough for me to not be too bothered about which word you want to use. This said, there is a line between justifiable caution because of arguably slightly ambiguous sources, and flatly making shit up about what people have said under the pretense of faux-caution. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the rumors were addressed by notable subjects, including Gillespie herself, they are no longer just rumors - they are reported facts, and according to WP:V, we include what is verifiable, not what we perceive as being true. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:V and note that it does not refer to "truth". It is "verifiable" that sources used "alleged" and the like in referring to the charge here.   That is not the same as saying it is a fact in Wikipedia's voice that the allegations were true, when sources use that specific word. Collect (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most reliable sources use "lover" without qualification here. You've made the point that it is at least plausible that there could be doubt about the nature of their affair because of ambiguity in explanations that based themselves off Frame (being the best source available), but there is hardly a preponderance of any reliable sources going for "alleged" by, as you put it, that specific word. We can have a conversation like reasonable people based on the sources that exist and we now all have in front of us: making shit up because it makes for a more forceful argument just stirs up unnecessary drama. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the best sources specifically do not make the claim as a statement of fact.  And state that Gillespie denied having any "intimate affair".   And that appears to be uncontroverted by you.  As for implying that any editor simply makes shit up - that is absolutely contrary to WP:NPA once more.   Note that Frame is questioned by other editors here as well -- he is the Parson Weems of Holt.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you delete that last comment, because your last claim is verging very close to defamation of a living person. Frame is not questioned (or at least not reasonably) by anyone here: we are certainly discussing what he meant, because you have a different take on it, but he to call him what you did is - well, I'm certainly not going to repeat it. This is exactly my point: you kind of have a kernel of a point in there, but you go so overboard with rhetorical fervour you'll defame a respected historian who you haven't even challenged on any specific point. This seems to be kind of a running thing: you can sometimes have a point, but you repeatedly go overboard and make shit up when you get excitable. Claiming that a dead woman said things she definitely did not say is one thing, but making slurs you can't back up against a public figure who is very much alive is another matter. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I rely on what the reliable sources say Gillespie actually said. Period. And that the major news sources use the word "alleged" with regard to what you "know to be absolute Gospel Truth" apparently. And how the hell you can say I am "defaming" anyone when I say that he expresses opinions in his work is absolutely incomprehensible. Now can you kindly calm down and note that my position is this - where reliable sources use "alleged" then it is likely there is sound basis for Wikipedia also to avoid making claims as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice." as the RfC closer noted, and as those outside editors agreed at AN/I etc. . Cheers. And have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hon, you don't need to aggressively assert things that are blatantly wrong to prove your point. "Major news sources" don't "use the word 'alleged'" in this case (which is obvious because people can read that coverage online in Google!), but I'm open to giving your perspective the benefit of the doubt because it's a plausible interpretation of what the historians say. Like, what you said there is just not true. And it pretending it is is not necessary to come to an agreeable consensus about this article. It's similar with Frame: what you said two paragraphs up was very close to defamation, and then when you calmed down a bit you tried to claim you'd said something else entirely even though it's right there in this section. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK -- Smithsonian Mag: "Zara Holt’s memoirs confirmed that he had had a number of extramarital affairs, and years later Gillespie acknowledged that she’d had a long relationship with him." Unless, of course, you find all relationships to be sexual liaisons - but the Smithsonian Mag does not make such a claim.  Australian Geographic  "Marjorie Gillespie, rumoured to be his lover."   Daily Telegraph "or the alleged secret lover, as has frequently been recorded."  Need more?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll merely note that it's odd to be relying on tabloid or otherwise patently less reliable sources to be making that particular stand: the Daily Telegraph and an "on this day" page in a magazine? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? You find the fact that a newspaper carefully uses the word "alleged" to be a "contentious claim?  "Tabloid journalism" (which is what is considered unusable, is the type which avoids such disclaimers.    Sorry - I use sources previously discussed here which you particularly appeared fond of . Collect (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

As this is being discussed at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents there is no point in running a parallel argument here.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion has now been archived without conclusion. For future reference, here are the relevant quotations from the sources in full:
 * From Tom Frame (bishop)'s 2005 biography The Life and Death of Harold Holt:
 * "I have not included the names of women with whom Holt allegedly had a sexual relationship because I was unable to confirm or deny that most of these relationships took place. By their very nature they were always illicit and Holt was very 'discreet'. Holt's former colleagues assumed rather than knew he was seeing other women although Zara [Holt's wife] confirmed his frequent infidelities with some bitterness shortly before her death. The sole exception is Marjorie Gillespie, who identified herself publicly as Holt's lover." (p 20)
 * "She [Marjorie Gillespie] also revealed in 1988 that she was 'Harold Holt's lover', a claim repeated in various magazines and newspapers. Simon Warrender had previously questioned Marjorie Gillespie about her relationship with Holt.
 * I referred to constant rumours since the Cheviot tragedy that she and Harold were having an affair. Impudently, she did not deny the rumours. 'Of course, Simon', she said, 'what is your interpretation of an affair?'. I told her. She said that there were various types of affairs - intimate affairs and sordid affairs and emotional affairs. Hers with Harold, she said, was an emotional affair based on 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect'." (p 304)
 * [The indented quotation from Warrender comes from his memoirs Score of Years published in 1973. Warrender was a businessman and friend of Holt.]
 * From the Australian Dictionary of Biography[271]:
 * "Provoked by public disclosures that Marjorie Gillespie had been his lover, Zara claimed that Gillespie was just 'one of the queue'. Zara knew of Harry's affairs and tolerated them, but she also deliberately exaggerated the extent of his indulgence."
 * Unfortunately, these quotations were not quoted in full and correctly in the preceding debate.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sex Files continued
I have removed the mention of Lola Thring. Frame (pp 29-31) suggests that Zara broke up with Harold because Harold was wooing Lola, while Zara says the quarrel was about money. I think this is too speculative and gossipy. I'm not sure if we should mention that Thomas Holt married Lola, since Harold was an adult by that time. How important is it?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not particularly fussed either way, but the fact that Frame (in passing) and the current source are literally the only two reliable sources that even mention them seems to err on the side of "speculative and gossipy". It is ironic that the current source is from the Treasury Department website, though! Phenomenal job on fixing the rest of the article so far - I so did not have the patience or interest in Holt to straighten that out and it's much improved already. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have a lot of spare time at the moment. I did think it was funny that a "Treasury paper" was our source. Perhaps it makes a difference if you know who the Thring family are. It looks like the "Treasury paper" is drawing on Frame, and it's not clear how much of what Frame says is known, and how much is an "alternative theory". It's also ironic that there is all this personal material in the "Early life" section without any controversy (yet). Thinking about it, I've decided to mention his father's second marriage as it finishes off the picture of his family.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To the extent that Frame is stating rumour as fact, and theory as fact and opinion as fact, I suggest he might well be treated as an "opinion source" ab initio. Collect (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Frame is an extremely respected academic biographer, and you have not even read any of his work besides (and very begrudgingly) the excerpts Jack and I have posted here (and of which we haven't actually posted any on this point). Frame is a very dry historian, but his book is very detailed so he does mention people who Holt had relationships with throughout his life. Frame, like any historian, references where people have said conflicting things on a point of fact, but his book is very long and he covers a great deal many points of facts, so which ones go in this article is the sort of discussion we need to have. It's deeply bizarre to make defamatory claims about a living person based on things they've written that you haven't even read: what opinion do you think he has here, and about what? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's normal for a biographer to discuss the subject's private life, and it's also normal for historians to offer opinions and to speculate. The discussions on this page give the impression that Frame is gossipy, which isn't true. Frame mentions Lola briefly. He describes the idea that Harold and Zara broke up in the 1930s over Lola as a "plausible alternative" to Zara's version (p 30). However, the text of this article which I removed was:
 * Holt had dated Viola Thring (known as Lola; 1911–71), daughter of his father's business partner F. W. Thring (and half-sister of the actor Frank Thring), but she ultimately rejected Holt only to marry his father. Harold Holt thus acquired a step-mother who was three years his junior.
 * I think that is gossipy. It reads like something from a society column. As a biographer, it is perfectly legitimate for Frame to delve into the reasons Harold didn't marry Zara till 1946. However, something worth mentioning in a book is not necessarily worth mentioning here. Incidentally, Harold's private life is hard to summarise neutrally without being misleading. For example, saying he didn't marry till his late 30s could give an entirely false impression.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd also add, since Collect didn't take me up on my question about what exact "opinions" he was trying to discredit Frame for, that Frame notes that multiple book historians have advanced a different perspective as to why they didn't marry until 1946, describes their general view in half a page and describes it in passing as "plausible", but for his own interpretation doesn't even state that Holt and Thring did actually date and mentions Thring literally once in the entire book. This would be why we would, rather obviously, remove that unsourced line from this article. And to anyone else, it might make a lesson out of enthusiastically citing the tabloid Daily Telegraph and "on this day" columns in magazines while then reflexively attacking any reliable sources being cited by people who've disagreed with him, even when this is a completely different topic and he's got absolutely no idea what's even being talking about. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To be fair, that sentence did have a source: the "Treasury paper". It just didn't seem notable or encyclopedic to me.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No argument there. Just annoyed at Collect for trying to claim Frame was an unreliable source in response to this when he had absolutely no clue of what Frame had said at all. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I totally agree. How many pointless arguments do we have to have???--Jack Upland (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless a topic ban is enforced - apparently, many pointless arguments are afoot. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 10:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's true. It seems that Collect's objection only relates to Marjorie Gillespie, and the framing of Frame was an attempt to further that argument. The text of the article now reflects what Collect apparently wants. The ANI discussion has now been archived without a conclusion. Does anyone think we should formally contest the RfC closure (which apparently should happen at the AN page)? In my limited experience, I have received little joy from Wikipedian bureaucracy. I think one of the problems is that uninvolved editors only give superficial responses, which is understandable but unhelpful. Perhaps we should simply let the matter drop.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not worth it in my book. The ANI discussion was a typical example of letting the bureaucracy anywhere near factual disputes: the logic never gets any deeper than "you are discussing an extramarital affair, my gut is to default to leave it out without reading anything, as for the actual sources tl;dr". I hadn't actually realised that the RfC process invites admins (who may well be quite clueless admins) to come in and act as definitive arbiter of fact, so it's probably a lesson about that, and it's certainly made me care about the RfA process - and will be the last time I don't strongly oppose any RfA nomination from anyone who hasn't demonstrated serious research chops in their editing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that you said previously that you hadn't had much experience with this sort of thing. I've had a little bit, and the process and outcomes are often frustrating. But this is the worst I've seen. I've heard people say consensus is not about counting votes, but I've never seen a "consensus" that so blatantly wasn't one. I understand that admins have a lot of stuff to deal with, but Guy stands out as being extremely superficial, particularly with his comment at the ANI about an "affair of a politician who died before my fourth birthday". It makes me wonder how he approaches disputes about the Roman Empire...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

read the effing guidelines please!!!!!
Talk_page_guidelines is clear.


 *  Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.

Clear? Collect (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , you already took this to AN/I, unsuccessfully. What you keep removing (in complete violation of WP:TPO) is not an attack. I advise you to drop it. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the troll, you know he's enjoying the attention. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Section titles are not effing "comments" they are an explicit attack.  Period.  Collect (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Flagging that I'm flagging
Just flagging that I might not be able to finish supplying Frame citations for the article as I had hoped. The tide of events has overtaken me... May other editors strive to finish the job...--Jack Upland (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. I've met Tom Frame once or twice. His work as a naval historian is very impressive, and in other matters he looks beyond the superficial and the trite. when he says something, it is something worth listening to. Holt is an important figure in Australian history, perhaps not so much for the things he did, but for the promise of changes from the Menzies era. If Holt had not drowned at Portsea, I think he would have done many of the things that Whitlam did some years later. What Frame says of Holt is well worth noting here. --Pete (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. We just found a long-running hoax in the account of Holt's disappearance, so I was attempting to provide citations for the whole article. But I seem to have run out of time. If you wanted to pick a section that is lacking in citations, this would be greatly appreciated...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harold Holt. 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/20140303212301/http://www.filmaust.com.au/pmismissing/ to http://www.filmaust.com.au/pmismissing/

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) 10:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Harold Holt. 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/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx

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) 15:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harold Holt. 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/20120130081144/http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/explore-stonnington/sport-and-recreation/swim/ to http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/explore-stonnington/sport-and-recreation/swim/

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) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RE-appearance in a eastern American state 'on holiday' ?
I've seen a documentary produced by a Australian agency, ASIO, I think it was, in which the KIDNAPPING, of Holt, was portrayed in a very different light, so while in other places, there might not be mentions of what was uncovered in the processes in/before that documentary, whatever it was called,.. the name escapes me... for me, the RE-APPEARANCE, of him in a eastern united states state, with a then "for the cameras" happy family shot & explination, with a suddenly happy wife, when in Australian papers and in a press release on the radio?tv? she had made an appeal, was distressed, etc,.. didn't KNOW, where he was,..

was then all of a sudden seemingly forgotten about / didn't happen, and we were up in arms over here, about the obviousness of the 'miraculous' re-appearance and discrepancies of especially her, 'memory'.

Utter rubbish, either way, whether only claim, or not, but when the 'explination' was given, for diplomatic purposes,

"we had no doubt at the time". ( one of the interviewed in the documentary )

sorry I can't remember the name.

REW Vurrath (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Utter rubbish.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

End of term date
Holt's term ended not on the day of his death, but on 19 December. I made an edit to reflect this but it was reverted by Ivar the Boneful. At first glance, it might seem obvious that Holt's term ended on 17 December, but it isn't. Holt was missing on 17-18 December and was still recognized as Prime Minister of Australia. His government, the Second Holt Ministry, also remained in office. It was only on 19 December when Holt was legally declared dead in absentia, which made the PM's office vacant and allowed John McEwen to become prime minister. As a result, Holt's term ended on 19 December. Johndavies837 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He was declared dead on 19 December, but he wasn't declared to have died on 19 December. He died on 17 December, as per multiple official investigations. His term ended with his death, as dead people can't be prime minister. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you're wrong. At the time, he was not known with certainty to be dead, as there was no body (and there still isn't). He was missing, that's all.  But common sense suggested he was probably dead, and political imperatives could not wait, so on 19 December, not a moment before, he was officially declared "presumed dead".  This declaration - not his actual death, whenever it happened - was what caused a vacancy in the prime ministership to occur. That's why his ministry did not conclude till 19 December, and why a new PM could not be sworn in till then.
 * It was only in 2005 that the Victorian Coroner officially ruled that he did in fact die on 17 December. Prior to then, Victorian law prohibited a finding of death in cases where there was not a body. But that's all sort of irrelevant in retrospect, as the political machinery that caused Holt's government to be terminated on 19 December 1967 operated in 1967, not in 2005. And the date of the termination of his ministry cannot be changed retrospectively. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a source which states when his term ended?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a ridiculous claim to make. Dead people cannot be prime minister, his term ended upon his death on 17 December. When his ministry ended is an entirely different matter. The fact that McEwen chose to wait two days before being sworn in does not mean that we throw basic logic out the window. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that this requires a reference, but here we go anyway: "Apart from dismissal, Prime Ministers have ceased to hold office as a result of death, etc. [...] following the presumed death of Prime Minister Holt on 17 December 1967 , the Liberal Party chose Senator Gorton as its leader on 10 January 1968". House of Representatives Practice, 7th Edition, Australian Parliamentary Library. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * And HERE is the relevant page from the Parliamentary Handbook showing Holt's commission as PM remained in force till 19 December, on which date it ended and McEwen was sworn in as PM.
 * That reference from H of R Practice fails completely to mention the premiership of John McEwen, so it can hardly be taken as authoritative in its detail. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  10:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference between the death of Holt and those of Lyons and Curtin was that the precise dates (even the precise moments) of Lyons' and Curtin's deaths were known, and of course their commissions were terminated as soon as the governor-general was advised they had died. Holt's was not like that at all. He was declared "presumed dead" on 19 December (on which date his commission was withdrawn), and officially remained "presumed dead" for the next 37 years, until 2005, at which point his status changed from "presumed dead" to "legally dead". When the 2005 Coroner determined that he had in fact died on 17 December, that was just setting in legal stone what everybody (apart from loopy conspiracy theorists) had always believed ever since he went missing. But none of this alters the fact that he remained legally Prime Minister until 19 December 1967, which all decent references will show, as must Wikipedia. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The precise moment of Holt's death is known, give or take a few minutes. The fact there was some uncertainty for two days does not change the fact of his time of death. Yes, people may have believed or hoped that he was still alive, but they were mistaken, as he was dead and had thus ceased to hold political office. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * @Ivar the Boneful: The problem is that you're changing history with facts which weren't known yet. When Holt was missing, the government continued to call him "Prime Minister," the news media continued to call him "Prime Minister," and Holt's government remained in office. This continued until 19 December, when Holt was presumed to have died and his premiership officially came to an end. This is not a normal death in office when the death is immediately known.
 * I have found multiple official sources:
 * - The National Archives of Australia says: "Australia's 17th Prime Minister, Harold Holt was in office from 26 January 1966 to 19 December 1967, when he was officially pronounced dead after drowning at sea." Source
 * - On the "fast facts" page for Holt on the website of the National Archives, it says both his premiership and his term as member of parliament ended on 19 December. Source
 * - In a 2005 book in association with the National Archives, it says on page 332 that Holt was PM and Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party until 19 December. Source
 * - On the website of the Museum of Australian Democracy, it says Holt died on 17 December, but his term as prime minister ended on 19 December. Source


 * This should confirm without a doubt that Holt's term ended on 19 December.
 * Johndavies837 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We go with the sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We pick and choose the sources that imply a logical impossibility and ignore all the other ones that back up the universal standard that dead people can't hold political office? It's not Schrodinger's prime minister and it's not North Korea with its Eternal President, he died on 17 December and that's when he ceased to be prime minister. If we're going to make the extraordinary claim that a dead person held political office for two days, then we need a source that specifically says that that was the case. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The NAA guide to Harold Holt's archives states: "At 10pm on 18 December 1967, after an extensive search, the Governor General, Lord Casey announced he would terminate Holt’s commission as Prime Minister". Here's a source that does actually state Holt was prime minister after he died: according to this interview, Attorney-General Nigel Bowen "advised the governor-general that if the body of the prime minister was recovered then his commission would be determined by his death [...] Holt was presumed to have died but technically he was still the prime minister. [...] At 10pm the governor-general Lord Casey announced he would terminate Holt's commission as prime minister.". But I think we should follow Bowen's initial advice that ministerial commission terminates upon death and list 17 December (i.e. Lord Casey's termination of commission was unnecessary as Holt was in fact already dead). I wouldn't object to a footnote explaining the situation, but per those sources the date would have to be 18 December. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again you're reinventing history. Casey made that oral statement late on the night of 18 December.  But his formal termination of commission document was not promulgated until the next morning, 19 December. That is the date on which Holt ceased to hold his office.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Ivar the Boneful: I'm confused about your request for sources. My earlier reply included 4 sources, 3 of which are government websites. They show Holt died on 17 December, but his term in office ended on 19 December. Even your own link to the NAA guide backs this up: on page 5 it says Holt's term ended on 19 December when he was declared dead. Your second link, to ABC, acknowledges that even though Holt is presumed to have died, he was missing and technically still prime minister. So we now have 6 sources.
 * Furthermore, you misrepresented what Attorney General Bowen said. He didn't say Holt's term would be terminated retroactively. He simply discussed a number of possibilities on how to proceed: if Holt's body was found, his death would be confirmed and his commission would be terminated. Another possibility was Holt being found alive. But in the worst case scenario, the leadership crisis would continue, so Bowen's conclusion was that it was up to the Governor-General to make a decision on Holt's commission.
 * Governor-General Lord Casey announced at 10 p.m. on 18 December that he would terminate Holt's commission and McEwen would become prime minister, but this was a public announcement and the phrasing suggests the formal act had not yet taken place. Considering it was late at night, it's reasonable to assume it happened after midnight or the next morning. But we don't have to assume, because we have multiple sources which confirm Holt's commission ended on 19 December.
 * A dead person is not supposed to be prime minister, but that doesn't mean their commission is terminated retroactively. I imagine doing so could create legal issues, because anything done by Holt's representatives on 17-18 December could potentially be challenged as illegitimate. A dead officeholder is also not without precedent. For example, U.S. House Majority Leader Hale Boggs is presumed to have died in a plane crash in October 1972, but not only did he win re-election in November, he remained in office as Majority Leader and Congressman for more than 2.5 months. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Holt was Schrodinger's prime minister, and Comet Hale–Bopp was in conjunction with Higgs boson.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As there have been no new comments for nearly 2 weeks and everyone except one person agreed, I have gone ahead and changed the date. There's a footnote which includes a link to the National Archives. Johndavies837 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

TBH, it does read a bit unusual. For two days, a dead person was prime minister of Australia? GoodDay (talk)

Married with Presbyterian forms.
The phrase "married with Presbyterian forms" needs clarification, I think. I couldn't find out what it means using Google. And the link doesn't contain anything relevant. Polar Apposite (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * agree it needs clarification, and have appended just such a tag to the claim in the article. Hope that helps. HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I take it as meaning the service was formally Presbyterian.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It means he was married at a Presbyterian ceremony. Not an uncommon phrasing. ITBF (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether it is an uncommon phrasing is irrelevant, IMAO. Anyway, I would dispute that it is not an uncommon phrasing. Polar Apposite (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)