Talk:Peter Garrett/Archive 1

Removed oil painting


This picture doesn't really contribute to the article content. It also crowds it (shown image is much reduced), and I feel the other two images (of him as a politician and musician respectively) convey more important aspects of Garrett as a public figure. Also it is an Australian image, and it shouldn't be therefore assuemd ace under "fair use" an American concept.--ZayZayEM 02:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Not really sure that's relevant - copyright laws apply in the country where the user is, not the owner. --Staphylococcus 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Olympics gig
The previous paragraph included material that had more relevance to John Howard than Peter Garrett. Relevance to but not effect on. The band didn't actually want to play that song at the closing ceremony, preferring to perform new material, but were told to do it or else. If the anecdote really must be included, then one may ask why others more relevant to Garret are not also included. Skyring 22:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what point you're making. Regardless of what song they played, the fact that Garrett and his bandmates chose to make a political/cultural statement via the "sorry" shirts at a major televised event strikes me as noteworthy.

I still think the edit should be reverted. What does everyone else think? CJCurrie 23:05, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point I'm making is plain. In an article consisting of 440 words material should be of direct relevance. Peter Garrett made a great many political points over the course of his career (and presumably will continue to make them). Either expand the article immensely to cover his career in greater detail, or stay with the theme of the existing article and include the highpoints.

Playing at the Olympics is a highpoint. The songs played are trivial.

John Howard went on to increase his majority in 2001 and 2004 without saying sorry. He's not going to do it, I suggest. What is the point of including a futile gesture in a short article about Peter Garrett? Stick with the highlights of a great career. Skyring 23:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two responses: (i) the band's decision to wear "sorry" t-shirts on a major televised event is hardly trivial, and (ii) no-one's saying that the article need be kept to 440 words. If you think that more attention should be given to other aspects of Garrett's career, feel free to add them.

I'm going to revert the main article, and would request that you not change it back until others have weighed in. CJCurrie 00:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't Garrett's decision. As noted above, the band wanted to play current material from their latest album. The article is lopsided with the anecdote included. Add a dozen more and it fits fine. As it is, it's the only specific political incident described in a life that's full of them. You haven't convinced me that the item is worth keeping or that I should write an article ten times as long. It looks to me like you care more about political points than quality. Skyring 01:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To explain my position in a bit more detail:

(i) I agree with you that the band's decision to play "Beds Are Burning" at the Olympic broadcast is not particularly noteworthy, particularly in that it wasn't their first choice. This is hardly the point at issue, however.

(ii) The band's decision to play the show with shirts that read "sorry" *is* relevant, regardless of what track they played.

(iii) This is admittedly just one isolated example among many in Garrett's career, but the salient point is that it's *typical* of statements and actions that Garrett made throughout his career. In other words, it isn't *out of place* in the article, and there's *no pressing need that I can see* to delete it.

I'll refrain from reverting again until someone else comments. CJCurrie 02:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point I made above was that it was a futile gesture. You want the one and only anecdote in the whole brief article to be one of failure? Is that typical of Garrett's career? Futility, failure, empty gestures? I don't think so.


 * In the first place, the question of a "national apology" hasn't necessarily been settled yet, regardless of Howard's recent victories. Second, the band's decision was hardly an "empty" gesture -- it was a part of their long-standing commitment to promoting aboriginal rights to a non-aboriginal audience.  The fact that this specific "gesture" hasn't yet been reflected in government policy strikes me as beside the point.  CJCurrie 02:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If Howard had been moved to make an apology immediately afterwards, then I'd agree with you. Noteworthy. Important. Relevant. But it didn't work out that way, and judging by the two subsequent Federal elections, nobody else was converted either, as more and more Australians sided with Howard. Face facts.


 * Again, I don't see Australia's recent electoral history as detracting from the relevance (and noteworthiness) of the band's decision. CJCurrie 02:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You want positive action and a story worth telling, hey, talk about Blue Sky Mine! Skyring 02:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the story behind that song would probably make for a good Wikipedia page. But this isn't an either/or scenario.  CJCurrie 02:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To explain my position in a bit more detail:

(i) I agree with you that the band's decision to play "Beds Are Burning" at the Olympic broadcast is not particularly noteworthy, particularly in that it wasn't their first choice. This is hardly the point at issue, however.

(ii) The band's decision to play the show with shirts that read "sorry" *is* relevant, regardless of what track they played.

(iii) This is admittedly just one isolated example among many in Garrett's career, but the salient point is that it's *typical* of statements and actions that Garrett made throughout his career. In other words, it isn't *out of place* in the article, and there's *no pressing need that I can see* to delete it.

I'll refrain from reverting again until someone else comments. CJCurrie 02:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree completely, CJCurrie. Ambi 02:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I prefer skyring's non-politicised version, with a note that "they wore t-shirts saying sorry to Aboriginals for past injustices" Xtra 02:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Done. Skyring 02:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would hardly think that a "non-politicised" description is appropriate for an event that was consciously intended as a political statement (bearing in mind that "non-politicised" and NPOV are not the same thing, of course). I maintain that the original wording should be kept.  CJCurrie 03:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My comment (as the author of the original article): I am not a close follower of the music scene, and my interest in Garrett's career is political not musical. I agree the article should contain more detail on his musical career. It may be that he made many political gestures during that career, but the fact is that I can't remember any of them except the one at the Olympics, and that is in itself significant. A gesture made at the climax of the Olympics in front of the PM, a huge crowd and an inernational TV audience is surely more noteworthy than any of his other gestures. I think the reference should stay. Adam 02:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think xtra's suggestion fills the bill without being too wordy, pulls all the facts together, and doesn't highlight the ultimate emptiness of the gesture. Skyring 02:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

With some reluctance, I've decided to revert the article a third time. My rationale is this: it isn't enough to say that the band was apologizing for past injustices, without drawing attention to the fact that this was part of a larger political controversy in Australia at the time. The shirts were a direct criticism of Howard's policies, and should be described as such.

I considered simply revising the wording on my own, but came to the conclusion that the original was about as good a summary as the article requires. Once again, I will request that the article not be changed back. CJCurrie 03:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggest you put up a suggested revision. The old version sucks for reasons explained above. Skyring 03:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I'll try to come up with a different wording more acceptable to all concerned. CJCurrie 03:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try again. It has all the flaws of the original, plus you've added a falsehood. It wasn't about dispossession. Get the wordage down and stick to the facts, please. Skyring 03:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The original mentioned dispossession, my version did the same. I maintain that it isn't enough to just mention the t-shirts without drawing attention to the specific political context of the event.  CJCurrie 03:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK. I take it back. You didn't introduce the falsehood. It's still untrue - the "sorry" campaign wasn't about dispossession. The political context of the event is that the band DIDN'T want to perform the song and had to be forced into it - the specific performance was the idea of SOCOG, not Midnight Oil, not Peter Garrett. It had no effect on John Howard and despite your fond hopes, he's ruled out any apology repeatedly, so the thing remains a futile gesture. For an entry this short about Peter Garrett, both the original version and your inaccurate rewrite are quite inappropriate. I'm happy with xtra's addition about the t-shirts. It's short, elegant, factual and doesn't get bogged down in a lot of political opinion. Skyring 04:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The specific performance is not the point at issue, as the band could have chosen to wear the same t-shirts regardless of the track chosen. The fact that John Howard was unmoved by the gesture is also beside the point. The performance was a major event for the band, and it had a *distinctly* political turn -- regardless of the ultimate outcome, and regardless of the song played at the event. CJCurrie 04:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Skyring, I think you're outvoted. Adam 04:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Democracy is a very fine thing, as we all know, but that is not the point. The original paragraph is inappropriate for three reasons: 1. It is untrue 2. It is too wordy for a short article 3. It highlights the futility of the gesture

Remember, this is an article about Peter Garrett. Do we really want to make the one and only anecdote in the article an untruthful one that highlights a futile gesture that he was forced into?

But hey, if you want to turn a factual article into a morass of political opinion and inaccuracies, go for it.

The paragraph reads:


 * Peter Garrett's greatest audience came when he led Midnight Oil at the closing ceremony of the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, watched by Prime Minister John Howard and a television audience of hundreds of millions. (The group wore black t-shirts emblazoned with the word "sorry".  This was a criticism of the Howard government's refusal to offer an official apology to Australia's aboriginal population for their dispossession through European settlement.)

I can't see any statement there which is untrue. The "sorry" campaign is about dispossession - what else would it be about? Wearing the t-shirts was a political gesture against Howard. Whether the sorry campaign is misguided or whether the gesture was effective are beside the point. Since this was Garrett's most widely-seen political gesture it merits mention in this article. Adam 05:14, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can't see anything untrue? You don't know what else it would be about? You could always look up an excellent resource called Wikipedia which is mostly factual, with errors being constantly hunted down and removed. The answer is readily available, including a reference to Midnight Oil playing at the Olympics and wearing the t-shirts, but the facts aren't important to you?

Well, pardon me if I revert the article to a factual version in keeping with the thrust of the article. Skyring 06:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the Stolen Generation issue, and of course that is one of the things which apology advocates say the Australian government should apologise for. But it is only part of the wider issue of dispossession at the national level, particularly since most of the actions relating to the Stolen Generation were actually carried out by the state governments. All the apology activists I know see the issue as relating to dispossession in a wider sense, and I dare say Garrett does too. The simple solution to this is to remove the phrase "for their dispossession through European settlement." Adam 06:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do we need to discuss the public response to the t-shirt stunt here? The incident does need to be mentioned, but we don't need to go into great detail, and the current paragraph is a statement of the obvious. Why not just give it the passing mention it previously had (and deserves), and save any further discussion for an article on the closing ceremony itself - where it would indeed fit in nicely? Ambi 10:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't the incident be better explained at the Midnight Oil or 2000 Sydney Olympics pages?

I think it should merely be "the government's stance on Indigenous relations", because many people had differing views as to what exactly Garret was trying to say. Cynics thought it was a cop-out, and possibly even a hand played by the government to try and get away with saying in public what they wouldn't say themselves. Detractors thought it was a stupid stunt that interrupted a great ceremony with squabbling politics. Other think using the word "sorry" is a big stupid copout, and tehrefore didn't appreciate the stunt either. The article needs to be NPOV on the matter, and therefore not critical itself of "Howard's" policy (did any previous PMs apologise?).--ZayZayEM 01:44, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's going to be explained in this detail, it should be at an article on the closing ceremony. I just don't see what fans, cynics, detractors and others think is relevant here. We should be reporting what he did, and we should be reporting the apparent intention of it - which was as a criticism of the lack of an apology. There's no judgement being made as to whether an apology is good, bad or neither - just that it was the point of the t-shirts. Ambi 02:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm bringing this article in line with the article on the Stolen Generation which mentions this performance. That's specifically what the "sorry" campaign of the time was all about, and that's what the various State and Territory governments apologised for. Before anyone reinserts comments about dispossession and criticising John Howard, may I remind everyone that this is an article about Peter Garrett, we should stick to the facts rather than speculate, and I'd like to see people provide some checkable source as to what Garrett himself intended, rather than insert opinion and speculation. I should hope that this is just common sense.


 * On that point, I notice that Peter Garrett, in his own similar-sized article about himself on his own website, devotes just 15 words to the Olympic performance. Skyring 22:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * CJCurrie, I'm reverting the article to my wording. Please read my comments above and provide a checkable source for your opinion before altering it again.


 * Just thought I'd weigh in here. I don't think that a mention of the 'sorry' gesture is complete without half a sentence on John Howards refusal to apologise. If Howard had apologised two years earlier, the issue would not have been as controversial, and the band probably wouldn't have made the gesture. It is easily Garrets most memorable political act. Whether Garrett wanted to sing that song or not is irrelevent. Whether the gesture had any impact is irrelevent. So, my attempt at rewording:


 * During their performance, the group wore black t-shirts bearing the word "sorry", a public apology to the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal Australians, and an implicit criticism of John Howards refusal to make a similar apology.


 * Also, at the risk of getting too nit-picky, were they really t-shirts? I seem to remember clothing more closely resembling overalls. - Borofkin 23:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Not nit-picky at all! I couldn't remember the exact items of clothing, and I noticed references to "sorry suits". Here's a link to a picture which clearly shows that it's more than a t-shirt. Skyring 00:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The following web pages directly associate the "sorry" shirts with a public criticism of Howard's government:

     


 * I asked for something that wasn't opinion. Do you have any statement by Peter Garrett? This is an article about Peter Garrett... Skyring 00:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say it counts for something when virtually every op-ed piece on the subject makes a connection. (Here's a challenge for you: find a report in the mainstream Australian media from immediately after the event which *doesn't* link the band's decision to Howard's policies).  CJCurrie 01:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Be fair. None of your sources are mainstream media from the time. Why should you insist I do something that you cannot? Skyring


 * The sources that I listed above were the first six that I found on-line. If you really want me to find mainstream media sources too, it probably won't be too difficult -- I'm simply putting the onus on *you* to show me a source that covered the event and *didn't* connect Garrett's actions to a criticism of the Howard government.  CJCurrie 02:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Again I make the point that you are asking me to do something that you cannot do yourself. I ask you to provide credible sources for your opinions and you come up short. But in answer to your request, here is an ABC item in which Peter Garrett himself talks about the event and doesn't mention John Howard or his government.


 * Interesting, but I think there might be a rather simple explanation for this: the Olympic organizers have rules against overtly political displays at their events. I'm sure that Garrett was smart enough to realize this, and I strongly suspect that it was for this reason that he didn't explain his actions in specifically political terms.  This takes nothing away from the fact that virtually every media source which covered the performance in detail described it as an attack on Howard.  CJCurrie 04:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

... to say nothing of the Wikipedia article on Midnight Oil.

I might also note that these were simply the first six pages that I came across on a Google search, looking for direct references. I'm sure there are several others. (I should also clarify that I don't necessarily endorse the full content of these pages, or the media outlets which created them).

The "facts" in this matter are simple: (i) the band staged a public gesture which was directed at John Howard's policies,


 * And your source for that is what, precisely? Skyring

(ii) virtually everyone, including Howard, seems to have understood the message. It's not "speculation" when the general consensus recognizes a connection.


 * It's speculation if you can't come up with a source. All you've got is opinion. Suggest you modify your wording to reflect the reality, otherwise I'll do it for you. Skyring


 * See above. My challenge stands.  CJCurrie 01:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided anything other than opinion, despite my asking for something concrete. You talk about John Howard's "policies" but the only criticism of John Howard implicit in the "sorry suits" is of his refusal to say sorry over the [Stolen Generation]. It seems to me that you are presenting opinions as fact, and you are doing so in an inappropriate fashion. This is a short article on Peter Garrett, not a long one on Aboriginal politics. I understand the points you are making, but i suggest that they belong elsewhere.Skyring 01:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I also don't think it is relavent that it is a short article. Garrett certainly deserves a longer article, and it isn't going to get that way by excluding details of his actions because the article is currently short. - Borofkin 02:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)




 * My thanks to the last poster. To Skyring: Garrett has made *several* statements in support of aboriginal rights *and against John Howard* throughout the course of his career.  Everyone else seems to realize that he was doing *both* at the Olympics show.  CJCurrie 02:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Everyone but Garrett, apparently. See this ABC item for his own views. Skyring 03:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On a separate matter, here's another reason why I oppose the "revised" wording: it makes it appear as though the Oils were *personally* apologizing for their actions vis-a-vis the aboriginal population. Someone unfamiliar with Garrett's history could very easily get the wrong impression, as such. CJCurrie 00:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * What makes you think it was the wrong impression? It's certainly the impression I got. You can't realistically say sorry on behalf of someone else. It's meaningless. I'm personally sorry for your scandalous activities last year. See?


 * They were apologizing for the past actions of a society, not for their personal actions. Your previous edit didn't reflect this.  CJCurrie 01:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, you are presenting your unsubstantiated opinion as fact. And if, by your own logic, they are apologising for a society, then where does John Howard come into this? The Commonwealth had no power to make laws for Aboriginal Australians until 1967, when we gave it to them. Skyring


 * John Howard is not being asked to apologize for his personal actions, but for the actions of a society. The Oils were doing much the same, precisely because Howard wouldn't (and, btw, the state/federal distinction isn't really the point at issue -- the apology is meant to cover intentions and directives as much as specific policies).  CJCurrie 02:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * John Howard is the head of the Commonwealth government, not the head of society. Why should he apologise for something the Commonwealth had no power over at the time? You do understand that we are a federal nation and that the powers of the Commonwealth are limited by the Constitution? This is beside the point as regards what Midnight Oil was doing at the Olympics, but I'm interested in your opinion. Skyring 03:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right -- it's beside the point. I'm not going to discuss this issue here, just as I haven't discussed it on the main page.  CJCurrie 04:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But once again, I raise the point that all this is getting into political discussion in what is otherwise a biographical article.


 * Given that the article is about a politician, political discussion doesn't strike me as entirely inappropriate. CJCurrie 01:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Again I make the point that this is a short biographical article yet you seem to want to use it as a vehicle to attack the Howard government's policies on Aboriginal Australians. I have no problem with you doing that, but you can do it more appropriately elsewhere. Skyring 01:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You are misinformed on a key point. I'm not using this article to attack Howard's policies -- rather, I'm drawing attention to the fact (which everyone else seems to understand) that *Garrett* attacked Howard's policies in 2000 via the "sorry suits".  CJCurrie 02:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But he didn't. You talk of Howard's policies. Please list the several policies Garrett was attacking, and how he was attacking them by wearing a "sorry suit". I can think of only one "policy" he was attacking and that is John Howard not making an apology on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. Can you see the point I'm making, and why I'm looking for facts and accuracy rather than your opinion? Skyring 03:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The policy in question was Howard's frequently-stated refusal to offer an apology. If you wish, however, I'll withdraw the word "policies" and replace it with "position".  CJCurrie 04:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "you seem to want to use it as a vehicle to attack the Howard government's policies on Aboriginal Australians" - The paragraph in question, even in it's original form, did nothing of the sort, and in making this statement you have revealed your POV reasons for expending so much effort to change it. - Borofkin 02:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh. I like a good debate, that's all. The fact remains that CJCurrie's changes all move away from the thrust of a short biographical article, and they are mostly opinion rather than fact. Peter Garrett's own website doesn't go into so much detail. I reckon there are better places in wikipedia to do this. I accept your point that it is going to stay a short article if we refrain from adding to it, but the fact is that it is a short article. Why not pull out that particular debating plank from under my feet by making it into a comprehensive examination of Garrett's political views? Skyring 03:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * CJCurrie has not changed the article, but has rather defended the basic essence of the wording from before this debate started. CJCurrie 04:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to add to the article because I'm too busy defending the existing content. My point stands: the incompleteness of an article is no justification for removing even more content. - Borofkin 03:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's inappropriate and wordy and full of speculation and opinion. And just where did "emblazoned" come from, anyway? Skyring 00:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The beauty of Wiki
The beauty of wiki is that we do not have to explain what the whole "Sorry" business is about. Just link to it. It should be mentioned that they wore Sorry shirts, and caused controversy for bringing semi-taboo politics into the ceremony. We don't need to say why tehy were taboo, or even in detail what the message was about. If someone can find an official statement from Garret/Midnight Oil did so, it might be appropriate to add that in. But not much else.--ZayZayEM 08:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A truce?
I'm willing to go along with Adam's revison. What say the rest of you? CJCurrie 04:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'm not quite happy with adam's version with it's interpretation and all, but i'm prepared to live with it. Xtra 08:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It needs work. It's wrong in two things, and another is merely opinion. Skyring 09:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like CJCurrie is up to his old tricks.


 * Actually, I was simply away from Wikipedia for a day. I would have reverted the edit sooner had I been around.  CJCurrie 04:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The version he installed is wordier and contains material that is opinion rather than fact.


 * (i) The general "apology" campaign has to do with more than simply the "Stolen Generation" issue. Since you seem to be keen on "exact" and factual information, I trust that (upon further reflection) you'll desist from making POV edits claiming that the gesture referred only to the Stolen Generation, and not to the broader question of historical displacement (which Garrett has spoken about numerous times throughout his career).  (ii) Most media outlets of the period referred to the gesture as a criticism of Howard's policies.  This is factual, not POV.  I trust that the reference will not be removed, as such.  (iii)  If you can reduce the number of words without changing the meaning for POV purposes, go ahead.  I'll be watching ... CJCurrie 04:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reference to the Sorry Campaign of the time is irrefutable, and that concerns the "Stolen Generation" thing, not any wider, vaguer topic.


 * You seem certain of this opinion. Do you have any quotes by Garrett to back it up?  CJCurrie 04:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's stick to material that can be backed up rather than use the article as a political soapbox for opinions. Skyring 03:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i'm with skyring. this insinuation and ranting is non-encyclopaedic. Xtra 04:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "Sorry Campaign" was generated by a recommendation of the "Bringing Them Home" report:


 * "On 26 May, 1997, a report tabled in Federal Parliament shook Australia. Bringing Them Home detailed painful evidence of the removal of thousands of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander children from their families. It recommended that a 'Sorry Day&#8217; be held. A year later over half a million people responded, signing Sorry Books and taking part in ceremonies on Sorry Day. In May 1999, this people's movement launched a 'Journey of Healing'."

State and Territory parliaments made apologies, every one of the motions specifically mentioning the BTH report as a source, but the Commonwealth did not make any such apology. I think it is generally accepted that the gesture was a reference to this lack of apology, and I don't think any editor here would object to that interpretation.

The only authoritatve statement by Peter Garrett that I have been able to find doesn't actually mention John Howard.

If we can find a definitive quote from Garrett, that would certainly help, but it is always my preference to keep speculation to a minimum. Again I make the point that in a short biographical article, having a wordy rant against the Howard Government is inappropriate and very much a POV that could better be placed elsewhere.

I guess that we could remove all speculation entirely and just report the plain facts, as I initially tried to do. Skyring 05:01, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am now persuaded that Skyring is right about what the "sorry" campaign was referring to. The paragraph about Garrett at the Olympics should reflect that. Adam 11:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! Still a bit wordy for a short article, but I'll not quibble. I mentioned Blue Sky Mine as a better example of positive action, especially in light of recent corporate events It strikes me that the songs could well be articles in their own right and vehicles for legitimate political observations by way of commentary. The Annotated Grateful Dead lyrics project could serve as a inspiration. Songs like 99 Luftballons and Imagine are articles in their own right. BSM and BAB are already listed in the Protest Songs article, along with two other MO tracks. Skyring 17:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Change of attitude
I was wondering if whoever wrote the paragraph about Garret changing his views and attidutes RE: US-Australia allience and the Pine Gap Facility. Article states he is a team player in the labour party, supports US/Aust allience, no long opposes Pine Gap. I am doing a project on this, does anybody have supporting links or information for this? Thanks. DanielBC 09:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

--PETER GARRETT: "I don’t believe that Pine Gap should be closed. I'm fully prepared to accept the position that Labor has taken." Added link to quote. NcLean. 23 November 2006

Opposition to Reproductive Rights
Rumour has it that Garrett opposes rights of abortion, state support for in-vitro fertilisation and various homosexual rights (eg: ALP's opposition to No-Gay-Marriage bill disappeared concurrently with Garrett's joining), but I haven't found any web-sources significantly better than hearsay, eg:. Anyone? NcLean. 23 November 2006
 * That's surprising I haven't heard. he is a man of strong faith, but I had always understood this did not translate to beliefs that are similar to the religious right. Even if true, the fact that it is hard to find this information and thus not a big part of his political standing, perhaps suggests that it is NOT notable enough for inclusion. Just a thought. --

Merbabu 00:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be right on that point - the reason I think/thought it significantly notable is that it explains why he has such strong backing from the Right-er-side of the ALP, even though Garrett is most notable for promoting causes commonly identified with the Left. I was myself perplexed by his choice of party allegiance until told by parliamentary staffers of the less-popularised effects of his convictions.  Certainly, if it can't be verified, it shouldn't go in! NcLean. 6 December 2006

Garrett Breaking ranks with Bob Brown
Garrett flew down and campaigned against the Greens in the 2006 state election, including sending letters to residents urging them not to vote Green. This is dispite the fact the Greens had a superior Environmental platform. Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, and many others, see this as Garrett prioritising his labor party aims over his committment to the environment. I have added a note to the main page to reflect this. I would ask that the labor party people on here do not remove it. Deathlibrarian 23:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that Garrett is advocating people vote for his own party, and not someone elses is hardly surprising. And thus I initially removed it as not being notable . What WAS notable was his choice of the Labor party and not the Green a few years ago. As for your recent addition to the article:
 * Garrett broke ranks with his traditional pro Environment stance in the 2006 Victorian state elections by visiting Melbourne Marginal seats and urging people not to vote Green, but to vote Labor, incurring the ire of many who had admired his past environmental stance, including Bob Brown, the leader of the greens.
 * This needs some significant modification:
 * Firstly, by suggesting that by not voting for the Greens means he is no longer "pro-Environment" is pure POV, unreferenced, and a likely personal opinion that is incompatible with policy on WP:OR. I know many people socially and professionally (and in environmental professions) who are "pro-Environment" but wouldn't vote Green in fit. SOrry, but the Greens don't have a monopoly on environmental credentials.
 * furthermore, a breaking ranks is not mentioned in any of the articles you suggested. I think it is WP:OR. It needs to be removed.
 * The smh article you did post shows Bob Brown's views on Peter Garrett - not Peter Garretts views on breaking ranks with the Environment movement. The fact that his choice of Labor and not Greens has caused fallings out with old allies/friends IS notable. Thus, Bob BRown's comments should be noted - but not as saying that Garrett is a traitor to the environemtn or something similar. THAT is POV.
 * --Merbabu 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Greens platform, as judged by Environment Victoria, is significantly more environment friendly than Labor. Have a look at their assessment of the major partues. (http://www.envict.org.au/file/scorecard_election2006.pdf). Garrett has sent his personal letters to voters in Northcote telling them not to vote Green, and to vote Labor. Therefore, while I agree Garrett is still Pro environment, he has now prioritised his loyalties to labor over the environment. Not POV. Fact.As for what the people think.....do you realise how many people think Peter Garrett has sold out????. And according to the Environment Victoria report on Party policies on the environment....the Greens *do* have a monopoly over environmental credentials, certainly in comparison to the policies of the Labor, Liberal National and Family First parties.Deathlibrarian 03:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It may well be true that Labor is now is priority over the environment (in fact, i don't doubt it). But, it is still an interpreted POV that this means he has shifted priorities. We cannot argue or interpret what Peter Garrett's motivations, allegiencies, opinions might be - unless they are specifically documented by a WP:RS. I am only trying to keep this as factual and verifible. But we can only report VERIFIBALE facts. When it comes to POV, we can only document people's POV (like Bob Brown's POV that he has "sold out"), not make judgements on what it might mean.
 * As for "As for what the people think.....do you realise how many people think Peter Garrett has sold out????." - i know, but you gotta find the WP:RS - like you did with Bob Brown comment which was fine. Ie, consider these 3 statements:
 * Bob Brown thinks Peter Garrett has sold out
 * Many people think Peter Garrett has sold out
 * Peter Garrett has sold out
 * The first is documented fact (you provided the smh article), the second is also true statement - i too know many people believe that. But it needs to be cited. The third is just an opinion.
 * And these two:
 * Peter Garrett urged people to vote Labor, and not Gree
 * Peter Garrett now puts the labor party ahead of the environment since he urged people people not vote green
 * first is fact, but as for the 2nd, it is just an interpretation of what the facts might mean, and has no place here. (although, if you can find a Bob Brown quote saying that, maybe it is OK to put in as long as you say Bob Brown said it).
 * Your recent edits and comments about "Labor" supporters (I am no such thing) sugggest that you are not trying to improve an encyclopedia, but are pushing an agenda and soap boxing. Let the facts speak for themselves in an article. have a look here:, . --Merbabu 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, I am referencing my statements and will no longer make assessments on his actions without backup from other sources. Garrett has watered down his stance on environmental issues, however I understand I need to source this and provide references. Actually the fact that you made your comments about People not voting green could imply that you have an anti Green agenda yourself.Deathlibrarian 04:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AGF. I was only making the comment that if someone doesn't vote green doesn't mean that they are not "pro-Environment" (whatever that actually means). Any other meaning people want to find in that is purely their own interpretation. And i repeat that I don't think it appropriate you refer to good faith editors who disagree with your edits as supporters or opponents of X political party. --Merbabu 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My apologies. Deathlibrarian 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries --Merbabu 07:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Drug usage
His Drug usage and the SilverChair joke is relevant because of the current issues involving drug testing. However it will be a long standing event also, because Garrett has been questioned in the past about his drug usage and refused to comment. Now he has been unmasked as taking drugs on a seperate occassion. It will shape part of his political career when someone who is "tough on drugs" turns out to be a user himself.

There is no legitimate reason for excluding the information relating to the drug use allegations. When Garret was a musician he admitted that he had taken drugs in his early tenties. Since being elected to Parliament, Garret has refused to comment on his personal drug use, and has in fact made several statements which are strongly anti drugs. Daniel Johns then made a statement which referred to Garret taking drugs with him in a Sydney apartment. Garret's office then contacted Daniel Johns, which led to John releasing a statement in the media retracting the allegation of drug use. Garret was then asked to undergo a drug test. He refused to undergo the drug test- (all of these facts are correct, and verified by media sources - Are any of the "Garret protectors" on Wikipedia denying that these facts are correct? Assuming that these facts are correct, the event is relevant for two reasons; (1) drug testing of politicians is an issue which is strongly debated in Australia. Senator Bill Heffernon has been pushing this issue. Additionally, the drug testing of politicians was raised by the AFL during their "Ben Cousins" drug scandal; (2) Garret has been pushing an anti drugs line. Yet in his past he has admitted to drug use, and now there is even an allegation that he is still taking drugs. Political opponents of Garret accuse him of trying to "change his spots" since becoming an elected official - his behaviour in this cincumstance appears to be entirely consistent with that critique.

For Wikipedia to maintain credibility the drug use allegations must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.98.254 (talk • contribs)


 * I think the current discussion at Talk:John Howard is very relevant to the inclusion of the drug reference, the same standard of notability and relevance should be applied to both articles. WikiTownsvillian 07:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 01:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tasmanian Pulp Mill
I was surprised the article currently has no mention of Garrett's support for the Tasmanian pulp mill. Garrett's views generated significant media attention.-- Lester  22:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

'We will change our policies' Gaffe
I am going to remove the following: On November 1, 2007, during the 2007 Federal Election, Peter Garrett had been overheard saying to Australian radio broadcaster, Steve Price, that "once we get in we'll just change it all" in reference to the ALP copying Coalition election policies. He later admitted to making the comment but said that it was during a jocular conversation. This is of no long term significance to the article. The precedent I use to justify this descision is found in the discussion articles of Kevin Rudd (re: Stripper visit) and Family First (re: Andrew Quah affair) which were held to have no place in an Encyclopedia article. Doktor Waterhouse 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * On what basis is it similar? In any case, I have argued previously (in the Kevin Rudd case I think) that we should wait about a week for all but unarguably encyclopedic things (e.g. deaths, resignations, election results), and I would apply that rule here. So let's wait, but I suspect that something about Garrett and the '07 campaign should be included (because he's had a big part). p.s. things went into the Tony Abbott article speedily enough. Peter Ballard 10:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Peter Ballard on this one. Notable enough event in the campaign, even used as the basis of an attack ad. Perhaps can be added in the context of his other activities during the election campaign. Recurring dreams 10:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a notable event in the campaign. That's why it belongs on the 2007 Federal Election article page. The Tony Abbott gaffes should also be removed. Doktor Waterhouse 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Were Garrett's statements a "gaffe"? Time will tell if it comes true or not.-- Lester  19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 'A gaffe is a verbal mistake made by a company or individual, usually in a social environment. The mistake comes from saying something that is true, but inappropriate, or, what might be as bad, an erroneous attempt to reveal a truth.' Doktor Waterhouse 01:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. It was then a gaffe :) -- Lester  01:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Garrett's Christianity
The article doesn't say if Garrett is a Christian. There's a mention that Garrett has commented on Christian values (the article doesn't say whether for or against). In actual fact, Garrett is a Christian, and has publicly declared it in recent times. I don't recall him ever declaring his Christianity before entering politics. Is he a recent convert? In Garrett's case, because he has stated that his Christian values influence his political decision making, his recent decision to declare his Christianity should be in the article. Thanks,  Lester  22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's been a Christian for at least 20 years, when I first read about it. It appears to me that he doesn't hide it, and on occasion talks about it, but doesn't trumpet it either. Peter Ballard 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"There are many in this House who hold a Christian faith and I include myself as one of them." He's made some major public statements about his Christianity. He's told journalists about it. He stood up in Parliament and declared his Christianity. He put it on his website. From that, I gather he's happy for everyone to know. -- Lester  00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If he was private about his Christianity, and it had no influence on his politics, then it would not be noteworthy. It's basically the fact that he said his Christianity influences his political thinking that made me think it is then worthy of inclusion in the article. On Garrett's website (quoting from Hansard), he says:


 * I agree that it is important mainly in that his beliefs are unusual (in terms of population not personal) when taken with his rock group and environmental background. He has a biography that I recall seeing in a bookshop. I am sure it has a concise non-controversial way that it can be phrased. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Lester, when I said he "doesn't trumpet it", I didn't mean he was private about it. I mean he's not one to thank his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ every time there's a microphone in front him. In any case, I agree with your last comment. Peter Ballard 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree on the whole and think that it should be included. Doktor Waterhouse 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

His Minister Status
Does the article say that Garrett's Environment Minister?--RoryReloaded (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's wait for Rudd to announce cabinet. There is speculation he will change it a little from the shadow cabinet. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a lot of buzz that his poor performance during the campaign will see him 'demoted' to the Arts portfolio while Penny Wong might take Environment.Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Methinks an IP block is warranted. Timeshift (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
Hi all, About http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=175745 Tried a wayback, but no dice. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)