Talk:Max Stuart

Categorisation
I have removed the categorising of this article under "Australian criminals"/"Australian murderers" as the question of Stuart's guilt remains highly controversial. This amounts to a POV. I think "Law enforcement in Australia" is more neutral.--Jack Upland 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is POV to decide that some convicted people are criminals and others are not. While possibly controversial, the Australian justice system, through several appeals, convicted Stuart.  Why have you suddenly unconvicted him?  Film as a medium is not noted for NPOV and this film's views of the case have been seen as controversial(Guardian film review) and certainly not historically accurate as "there is some liberty taken with the facts and some new characters are created" ABC interview with Ken Inglis--A  Y  Arktos 08:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the point. I have not "unconvicted" Stuart. He was clearly convicted, as stated in the article. As you yourself have indicated, his guilt remains a subject of controversy (and not just cinematically!). In these cases, it is not neutral to label someone an "Australian murderer"! I think it should be a general rule (not just in Stuart's case) that when there is widespread doubt about guilt Wikipedia should not label the person guilty. --Jack Upland 09:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not believe there is widespread doubt about Stuart's guilt- a Royal Commission examined the case and upheld the verdict of guilty. Wikipedia is not naming someone as guilty, it is reporting without prejudice the findings of the Australian justice system.  There are authoratative sources which said he was guilty - we have few sources more authorative than the findings of a Royal Commission.  Stuart has never been acquitted or pardoned.  I concur there is widespread doubt about the police methods of extracting a confession and documenting the confession.  Those doubts are conveyed in the article and those doubts were dealt with in the Royal Commission, who notwithstanding those doubts, still upheld the verdict.--A  Y  Arktos 10:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To categorise someone is a murderer is to name them guilty. How else can you interpret it??? It doesn't say "convicted of murder". The movie reflects a widespread doubt about Stuart's guilt, as did the long running campaign to exonerate him. Just because this has been unsuccessful does not mean it doesn't exist.--Jack Upland 11:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The film was a work of fiction. Please do not confuse fiction with real life.  It was certainly based on a real case but for the sake of the story, it tampered with the truth; the film did not however, according to the reviews go so far as to say that Stuart was innocent - apparently it left room for doubt.  Widespread doubt about Stuart's guilt was dealt with in in real life numerous appeals and a Royal Commission.  Issues as to the appropriateness of the extraction of the confession and thus its validity were thoroughly explored at the time.  The description of the Category:Australian murderers is "Australians who have been convicted of murder."  You, and others, might not like it, but he has been convicted of murder; he has not been acquitted, he has not been pardoned.  Perhaps your quarrel is with the naming of the category and you would like it to fit closer with the description - in which case take your argument there.  It is my belief however that Stuart is correctly categorised as per the description associated with the category.--A  Y  Arktos 20:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're the one harping on the film (which you haven't seen!). I will take up your suggestion on categories.--Jack Upland 07:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I am referring to the film, is that your edits, and the edits of others, seemed only to have the film as a source. There was no evidence in the earlier versions of any other sources, certainly no references.  I may not have seen the film, and do not intend to, but I have referenced my assertions, including those that allude to the film.--A  Y  Arktos 09:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have the film as a source, but it's good to see you have fleshed out the article with references.--Jack Upland 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone find a picture on this guy?
Im just asking because i'd like to pass this article, but I don't know whether it is feasable or not for this article to have a picture of the guy, so I don't know what to do. Homestarmy 18:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a picture on http://www.eniar.org/news/murdoch2.html but it dates from 1972 and therefor is definitely not public domain. There is also some sensitivity about pictures of Indigenous Australians, although as far as I know that is only when they are deceased.  Stuart is still alive.  Perhaps we could use the image as fair use - what does anyone else think?--A Y Arktos\talk 19:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * try some of the other links especially the agency sites where they are more likely to have promotional images avaiable that could be 'fair use'. An image would be nice but but it's not essential Gnangarra

Failed GA
I failed the article because it doesn't cover the whole subject.
 * If the article is about Max Stuart, then there is nothing before 1958 this needs to added not even his birth date(year) is in the article.
 * If the article is about the court cases, his conviction then this needs to be expanded to show trail details, appeal dates, media reporting.
 * If the article is about the movie, then it requires more details about the movie and needs to be copy edited to reflect that.

The article has been edited by working groups and though it doesn't suffer from NPOV issues it only focuses on item relevant to those groups. Gnangarra 08:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to failed GA comments

 * Estimated year of birth (1932) has been added--A Y Arktos\talk 08:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

suggest sections something like this
 * early life
 * case
 * Appeals
 * Media
 * Royal commision
 * parole / release
 * Publications on case
 * Movie
 * Indigenous Politics

If you would like me to come back later and review just drop a note on my talk pageGnangarra 10:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your offer, not sure how much I can do on his early life. Just working on Jimmy Sharman now - Stuart and other famous Indigenous Australians including Geoff Clark and Douglas Nicholls boxed in his tent.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * the police link has some notes about events in queensland prior to the case. 1 or 2 paragraphs is sufficient. Gnangarra 11:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this misses the point. Max Stuart is worthy of an article because of the controversy about his case. There's not that much to say about his early life. The article is not about the film, but the film obviously needs to be mentioned. Instead of trying to force the article into a predetermined one-size-fits-all framework, why not accept that each subject is unique? This one is certainly different from most. To set down the headings that ought to be used and then try to find info to fill them out is absurd.--Jack Upland 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have filled out the headings to the best of my ability. It really does not worry me if this is classified as a good article or otherwise, my work on the article was to try to provide accuracy, a neutral point of view with verifiability assured by reference to reliable sources.  The topic is emotional and the sources help to give it balance.  I am happy to take on board suggestions for improvement and will do what I can.  I agree with Jack Upland that Stuart is notable for the case.  We have few other articles about Aboriginal polititians at Lands Council level.  His later life is interesting as an illustration that it is possible to contribute meaningfully to society after criminal conviction and imprisonment and be judged on that contribution.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The headings were a suggestion on format and whether you use or not doesnt bother me. I just read the article took what was there and a suggestion that Early years was also included. I think this needs to be included about a person if available Gnangarra 00:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have re-read this article since it has been edited. I covers the person in a lot more detail, it's what any person being included in Wikipedia deserves. I would support it being GA article now and suggest it gets renominated.  Gnangarra 01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian convicted child sex offenders

 * Not sure I am comfortable with Category:Australian convicted child sex offenders as I feel it is anachronistic. He wasn't convicted for that because I don't think that was really the way people thought at the time - they were horrified though.  On the other hand the victim was nine years old, she was raped as well as murdered, he was convicted, ...--A Y Arktos\talk 02:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article also mentions his conviction of indecently assaulting a nine-year-old girl in Cloncurry, Queensland. But you're arguing that he's convicted of rape, which happened to be of a child, rather than of breaking legislation relating directly to children? Andjam 02:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is more that there obviously were offences relating to children, and there is of course the Qld conviction referenced by the Police Journal. It just seems in some way anacronistic because the category seems very late twentieth century/ 21st century, not relating to the 1950s - "child sex" wasn't a term although it was an abhorred concept.  It is just a gut feeling I have that it is wrong but I am unable to express myself better than to say it is anachronistic--A Y Arktos\talk 02:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As we previously discussed, these cats are problematic.--Jack Upland 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Age of consent seems to be a legal concept that has been around for a while - for example, http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lab/85/grieves.html talks about age of consent in Britain and NSW in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Andjam 03:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that was in issue.--Jack Upland 08:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As per User: Jack Upland - in the 1950s there was no such thing as "convicted child sex offenders", yes there was age of consent, yes there was abhorence of the crime as relating to young children, but it is still anachronostic categorisation - not of the time. Stuart is still living and he would not be described as  ... (even if he wasn't still living) --A Y Arktos\talk 08:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's valid. We use modern English categories for historical (and for foreign language) issues all the time. The fact that this precise phrase might not have been used (though even that is unproved) is irrelevant. It is the criminal tag that is problematic.--Jack Upland 04:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 21 June
I am very disappointed that significant edits have been made to this article without discussion here first. It does not seem appropriate for an article that has been nominated as a good article and is now undergoing peer review to fail to discuss significant changes. In particular removing the section on Indigenous politics seems to add no value and remove information. I do not believe such removal is justified. I am also disappointed at an unfree image being used as the primary image, I think it would be better to use no image, as per the discussion above.--A Y Arktos\talk 09:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I may get around to significantly expanding the 'Stuart Case' section. This will, however, take time. michael talk 12:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing GA status
I'm also concerned that dramatic changes took place to an article under PR with discussion. The expanding and adding of cites to his early years are good. The sections on his release and activities after need to be seperated. He efforts representing his people as an elder should not be dismissed as minor piece. The over all read has taken the article from a balanced article to heavily POV article. I have removed GA status and listed the article as on the GA dispute page. Gnangarra 15:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A gross overreaction. "heavily pov"? I deleted no information whatsoever; I simply moved sections to make it an easier read and expanded the text with references. I can't see how this can make the article "heavily pov". I expanded a section relating to his trial and will continue to expand this section. It needs an expansion of his later life for a sense of balance; feel free to add this. michael talk 15:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to discuss with the editor. I have asked him to copyedit.  I have suggested he read more carefully WP:Bold.  He has invited me to make changes and I have reverted.  I don't have a copy of Crocker's book so I can't cite from it.  I find the refactoring of headings, point of view and effectively deleting info as they dismiss Stuart's contribution to the community in later life and dwell excessively on the case.  Similarly I find the picture of Stuart as a prisoner in Yatala is not a reasonable lead image of the man. --A Y Arktos\talk 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Stuart quote
The following quote appears in the article:


 * Yeah, some people think I'm guilty and some people think I'm not. Some people think Elvis is still alive, but most of us think he's dead and gone.

Some people see this as significant. Even as an admission of guilt! I don't. On what logical basis does it appear in the article???--Jack Upland 06:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As the editor who added the quote I do see it as significant. As the quote appeared in the newspapers (and in the film as Stuart's own personal commentary on the case), the reporters also saw it as significant.  The issue has otherwise always been that an inept or corrupt police force framed Stuart in order to ensure that a conviction was secured.  While there have been improvements in police methodology since, partly as a result of criticism of the way the case was handled, the quote suggests that Stuart himself is not claiming wrongful conviction despite some shoddy handling of the evidence. --Golden Wattle  talk 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont read it as an admission of guilt I read the quote as Stuart saying that no matter what the result of the court cases, no matter what evidence is produced some people will still say that he's guilty. Gnangarra 09:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - he is being deliberately evasive, he doesn't though say I am innocent and I was framed, many others do so on his behalf. I think the reference to Elvis (who most people believe is dead) means the opposite of what you suggest, ie no matter what evidence is produced some people will still say that he's innocent - in my view, he is inviting them to give it a break.  Given the quote produces interest, I think it should stay.  We are merely conjecturing here and hence our views cannot be in the article (per WP:NOR) - let the reader decide.--Golden Wattle  talk 09:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand in a newspaper interview cited in the article he says If he had the money, he says, maybe millions of dollars or a nugget from the Macdonnell Ranges up there, he would reopen the old case so justice could be done. "I don't want a pardon first," he says. "I just want the case to start again and talk about a pardon after, yeah. And they've just got to pay me from the day they arrested me and that is going to cost them a million. But language is money. You can't force them without money." --Golden Wattle talk 09:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Stuart is only "being deliberately evasive" if you deliberately evade the most obvious inference of what he said. Most people think Elvis is dead, i.e. he implies most people would agree he's innocent. (Look at the sentence construction.) Why on earth you - and any journalists etc - think he would hint he was guilty after all these years is beyond me.--Jack Upland 09:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Max Stuart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821123934/http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/finding_aids/MS3764.htm to http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/finding_aids/MS3764.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Stuart. 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/20060911072538/http://henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=1980 to http://henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=1980

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Stuart. 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/20090915132450/http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_2jul07.pdf to http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_2jul07.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520110933/http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/supreme/judges_report/judges_report_2002.html to http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/courts/supreme/judges_report/judges_report_2002.html

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) 05:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Max Stuart. 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/20050902210618/http://aufs.org/reviews/film/blackandwhiteaus.php to http://aufs.org/reviews/film/blackandwhiteaus.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051004040319/http://www.orac.gov.au/Search.aspx?State=Northern%20Territory&StateShort=NT to http://www.orac.gov.au/Search.aspx?State=Northern%20Territory&StateShort=NT

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) 04:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Stuart. 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/20060903032139/http://www.cbonline.org.au/index.cfm?pageId=36,96,23,1695 to http://www.cbonline.org.au/index.cfm?pageId=36,96,23,1695

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) 21:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Thank goodness Stuart was not a Catholic"
The article says in a footnote: "Father Dixon was later to comment: Thank goodness Stuart was not a Catholic. If he had been, Stuart denying the murder would have been regarded as a confession and Dixon would not have been able to mention his doubts over Stuart's guilt with anyone. The church holds that the seal of confession would be inviolable even with Stuart's life at stake." I think I will mark this as dubious, because it does not make sense. How can it be a confession to deny committing a murder? Also the statement is unreferenced; and googling it only turns up pages which have copied this or the Thomas Sidney Dixon article. Adpete (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)