Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1975 Australian constitutional crisis/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:47, 26 June 2010.

1975 Australian constitutional crisis

 * Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. The 1975 crisis, and the dismissal of Prime Minister Whitlam by Governor-General Kerr, is, I'm told, one of those moments that everyone (at least in Australia) remembers where they were when it happened, and it will probably be the subject of controversy so long as the major players are still alive and probably for longer than that. The article has had a considerable peer review, with several editors weighing in. I think this should be a worthy companion at WP:FA to Gough Whitlam, which got there a couple of months ago. Oh, it's a Wiki Cup nomination, though I am getting my butt kicked now that all the cannon fodder's gone. Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Media File:Whitlam_dismissal_19751111_Sydney.jpg and File:Domain_19751124.jpg should be put through wp:otrs to verify source. The use of the non-free File:Gough_on_steps.jpg is not needed to understand the subject hence fails wp:nfcc and therefore WP:FA Criteria 3. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well, I'll delete that one and look into the other two. Note that the Gough on steps article was added by another editor whom I warned that it would be taken out at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fasach Nua, looking into the other two, they were uploaded by the photographer, he has simply changed his name on Wiki. Takver is Tirin.  So no OTRS is needed, as they were uploaded and released by photographer.  Many thanks for your usual top of the line image check.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can set up a wp account, otrs gives something concrete, and I would like to be 100% sure we have proper licensing on these Fasach Nua (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a note on the contributor's Commons talk page here. We'll see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, both those photos are original works of mine. I have visited those pages to ensure that this is asserted on the image pages both as my general photographer use name of Takver and my wikipedia username of Tirin. Both are released under the CC-attrib-SA-3 licence and the GNU FDL as stated on their pages.--Takver (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You should have written articles on all small scope things if you were interested in various poinstcoring competitions.... eg people opnly notable for one thing  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  04:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Point is, that I'm really not that interested in the WikiCup, and have survived this far on my normal ten-times-a-year FA promotions. That won't get me by any more.  I haven't even dipped into my book of Interstate Commerce Commissioner bios for DYKs.  This is it for Australia for me, at least for now.  I will likely be there again early next year and perhaps will look for another topic to research.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, hence your editing habits :)  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  05:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * He who dares not, wins not. Next project,Richard Nixon--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources issues
 * The ISBN for the Kerr biography appears to be 0-333-25212-8
 * The ISBN for the Michelle Grattan book appears to be 978-1741-10727-2 ?

Otherwise, all sources look good, no further issues Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is done. It's Kerr's autobio, he is a figure that is crying out for a good biographer, in my view.  Won't happen until the main figures are all gone, I suspect.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment:
 * The following sentence doesn't have a footnote: "Allegations have been made that Kerr acted on behalf of the United States government in procuring Whitlam's dismissal." And I'm not sure it is supported by the footnote to the following sentences. I'm thus a little concerned that the sentence overstates the "allegations" as it really is just one allegation by a convicted criminal. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue was discussed by me in 2005 on the article talk page. Blum's book is now online via Google Books in limited preview. He discusss all the allegations of CIA involvement with destabilising the Whitlam Government and provides secondary sources. I have added this book as a citation for the allegations of CIA involvement. --Takver (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a nuisance - The New York Times Nov 6 1975 ran a story titled "C.I.A. ISSUE ENTERS AUSTRALIAN CRISIS; Whitlam Says an Opposition Chief Had Agency Links and Accepted Funds C.I.A." The Opposition Chief was Doug Anthony, Leader of the Country Party (since renamed National Party) who had close links to Richard Lee Stallings who helped establish CIA operations in Australia. There is no mention of CIA funding at all in the article and yet it was an issue made public by Whitlam with reputable reporting in the lead up to the dismissal. This specific ref wasn't available to me back in 2005. The article would be deficient without some reference to the public allegations at the time of CIA interference through funding of conservative parties. Australian Online newspaper archives don't appear to have 1975 records available yet. --Takver (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be home tonight, my trip is cut short, will answer concerns then.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SupportComments addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Comments. The article could possibly benefit from another look through the prose. The text switches quite a lot between tenses as in I did this, doing that. I would prefer to have the whole thing in the past tense as much as possible. Should "in exercising the reserve power" be powers? Elsewhere, "reserve powers", with an "s", is used.

Please check that the quote used in reference 6 "by all available mean" is correct. Ordinarily, I would expect this to be "all available means". Please also check the quote used in reference 36, as there seems to be some punctuation missing from "clean hands Fraser".

I'm a little confused by "Whitlam was delayed in leaving Parliament House, with the result that Fraser arrived at Yarralumla first..." as Whitlam arrived "before one o'clock". So, he wasn't late: Fraser was early.

Two of the Queen's biographers, Jennie Bond and William Shawcross, who are not similar in style or outlook, state that the crisis fuelled republicanism in Australia. You've mentioned the republican referendum from 20 years after the crisis, but is there anything else that can be said on this aspect? I wonder whether Bond and Shawcross have overplayed its importance, or whether it really did effect Australia's view of the monarchy.

If you're looking for images, perhaps File:MalcolmFraserAndJimmyCarterAtPodium.gif is something to be considered for the legacy section? DrKiernan (talk) 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will get to the accumulated comments (well, not that many) within 24 hours.  My computer was being repaired and I spent four hours on the phone with Apple technical support.  I've got a fair backlong, and I want to leave this to last so I can concentrate on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: I carried out a full peer review on this article. I am not an expert on Australian constitutional politics and there may be nuances that I have failed to understand. In general terms, however, I was satisfied that after some final polishing this well-researched article would definitely meet the featured article criteria – with the bonus of being actually interesting. Some of that final polishing has taken place during this FAC, and perhaps there will be more tweaks, but I am not withholding support on that account. I also did an independent sources review - see above. A fine companion artricle to the already-promoted Gough Whitlam. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Brian. I have addressed all comments except for the question of the US, which I am still looking at.  I have added a bit, sourced inline to Freudenberg, on republicanism; this is from what I can see a matter in dispute (after all, the true problem was not that there was a Queen, but that the representative could be fired by one of the combatants in a way the Queen cannot).  This is not something I think the article should get into in depth.  The tense changes are probably you noticing that I refer to Whitlam and Fraser in the present tense as they still live, whereas Kerr is always referred to in the past tense.  With at least Fraser still writing, I think the present tense is appropriate.  Regarding the appointment times, there was a certain amount of confusion about the times, which I've explained a bit more.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence on Whitlam's CIA allegations regarding Doug Anthony. I really don't think they are deserving of more.  I've tried to avoid Whitlam's various allegations regarding everyone who supposedly conspired against him, from Lady Kerr on down to Barwick's distant familial relationship with Ellicott.  I do not feel they add to the reader's understanding of the crisis.  I think I've covered everything and await more comments, or I hope, supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside: When the cinema lights came up at the end of a film in 1977, I noticed Kerr—that fat, "farting Falstaff", as Patrick White wrote—sitting in the row behind me with his wife. I hissed at them. My parents next to me weren't even aware of what was going on. Kerr's wife was palpably upset; he had learned to ignore the continual torrent of heckling from those affronted by his partisan actions.
 * 1) "Whitlam intended to advise a half-Senate election"—I'd use "hold", since the GG by convention does what the PM says. The grammar doesn't quite work with "advise".
 * 2) In coverage of the recent British election, I checked at WT:MOS about O versus o for "opposition". They said normally "o", as does my reading of the MoS. But it's no big deal.
 * 3) (With plus) noun plus -ing can be clumsy, although not always: "The events of the dismissal led to only minor constitutional change, with the Senate retaining its power to block supply, and the Governor-General the power to dismiss the Government." But let's not bother changing it, because the whole sentence is misleading; what was this minor constitutional change in which the Senate "retained", etc. That suggests the Senate's power to block anything was ever at issue in terms of constitutional amendment. This has not been the case.
 * "Whitlam and Fraser have reconciled." ...their differences.

I've read only the lead; I'll try to return. Brave to take on such a complex, nuanced subject! Doing fairly well so far. Tony  (talk)  08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you Tony. I'll make those changes.  My sources do indicate that Labor wanted a referendum on ending the Senate's power to block appropriations bill but never proceeded with it because they felt they could not get four states to go along, but that is perhaps overly complex for the lede.  I'll play around with it.  Stay tuned to this station.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed "advise" to "call", which seems more accurate than "hold". I also split the sentence about constitutional change, and I think it answers your concern.  It would be tedious to mention in the lede that the constitutional change relevant to the crisis (I do not think the limit on the age of judges was Australia's answer to Garfield Barwick) was the same-party requirement for senators filling casual vacancies.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support This is a good article  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  01:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Per all above, can't say it any better. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 01:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support seems a pretty good account, & meets FA standards. Occasionally the affair comes up in press commentary as a major test of the Westminster system generally, and in political science there must be much, much more of this - don't ask me who by.  It would have been nice to have had some of this.  Should QEII have intervened, or sent someone else to do so (Charles was briefly mooted in the UK press at the time, clearly a very bad idea)?  Would republican sentiment on the Australian left be less if she had, and so on? That dimension is missing from a pretty straight bit of reportage.  The penultimate, CIA, para, seems a bit stranded; might be better higher up the section. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave that some thought. Decided against it for two reasons.  First, everyone has an opinion about what should have been done differently.  Second, there's a fine line between this sort of thing and alternate history.  I decided that it was best to give the reader the basics and let them go on and look at the speculation if they cared to look further.  Thanks all for their supports.  Five supports, all checks done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * An WP:NBSP check is needed throughout, the article mixes citation and cite templates, and in one case The Age is cited as a periodical, in other as a webcite-- needs to be consisten, websites need accessdates, periodicals are in italics. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.