Talk:John Anderson (Australian politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject Australia / New South Wales / Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconJohn Anderson (Australian politician) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as Mid-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for non-editorial assistance.

Accusation and exoneration[edit]

can i suggest that if anderson is exhonerated of involvement of bribery (which i believe he will be) that that section is removed. Xtra 13:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

when and if he is exonerated the article can say he was exonerated. Adam 22:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting part of the subject's history, a very serious accusation, which became a trial by media, followed by exoneration. It's part of the story, I recommend we keep it there. The Little Platoon (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of "Jokes"[edit]

You are clearly being unreasonable and pompous on this issue Dr Carr. While these statements may be in the form of humour, they are valid political statements in which Anderson takes a shot at the Greens. As a Liberal, I support these statements and do not see them as jokes. It is a reflection of Anderson's view, and after observing Anderson for 6 or so years you would know as well as I know that Anderson is rarely serious when stating his view, although the degree tends to vary. Please do not attempt to remove the quotes again, or I will call in the Administrators, and they can decide the validity of these political statements. And believe me, from outside Australia where their views on Australian politics are less serious to them, they will support me. Evolver of Borg 09:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to threaten me. If you want to add a serious section on Anderson's views on other parties, you are free to do so. Anderson's joke lines, given out of context, are unencyclopaedic, no matter how amusing Young Liberals find them. It is in any case a very old and tired joke. Adam 23:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest putting them in wikiquote. Xtra 01:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An xtra good idea. (PS, did you hear that the Liberals are born to rule, while the Nationals are born to rort? Ho ho ho.) Adam 07:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You only support my point that you are being pompous Doctor Carr, and is clear you let your political views get in the way of constructing a proper encylopedia. Evolver of Borg 18:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've issued a request for [[1]] on this issue. Having a user from outside of Australia would be a good thing for this issue. Evolver of Borg 18:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that in Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh there is a substantial section of quotes. Many of which are in the same tone as these. Xtra 10:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


He actually said "prostrate condition." I suppose he meant "prostate" but I'm not sure about the ethics of falsifying the record in this way. Adam 05:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anderson's Rough Childhood[edit]

Hi there, i just like to point out that maybe more words could be added to John Anderson's profile as a youngster. The Australian newspaper had jus brought up sad news about his childhood. His mom died when he was 3 and he accidentally killed his sister at 14, when he mishit a cricket ball and hit her on the head. For reference, 24 June 2005, "Forever the reluctant leader" thanx


"He will remain as Member for Gwydir until the 2007 election, and has not ruled out standing for another term"

This has become moot,as the seat of Gwydir is being absorbed into the seat of Parkes.Serenacw 09:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faith and Duty[edit]

No mention has been made in the article to Mr Anderson's deep Christian faith or to the biography that was published last year. I thought a change in the article's title might be appropriate as well, something like John Anderson (Fromer Deputy Prime Minister Of Australia) or something similar that clearly identifies that he wasn't just an MP. Comments anyone? 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)jplambsReply[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

There is an informative interview with Andrew Denton at that discusses his faith and the loss of his fifth child. Some of it might be appropriate for inclusion. Bendav (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Anderson (Australian politician). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Anderson (Australian politician). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates for 2020[edit]

@Adam Carr:@Captainmax:@Xtra:@HiLo48:@BrownHairedGirl:@Ivar the Boneful:@Bahnfrend:@Valluvan12: Thought I'd try my hand at a BLP of a National Party figure. Since leaving the role of Deputy_Prime_Minister_of_Australia this subject has actually gone on to do a lot of social and political thinking through interviews with progressive figures like Jonathan Haidt and conservative thinkers such as Jordan Peterson. I'd like to expand into that, as well as putting more flesh on beliefs and early life.The Little Platoon (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go for it. This article is getting a fair bit of traffic as a result of him re-becoming a public figure. Hopefully there is some reliable sourcing that covers his recent activities. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. If anything, the subject of the article is more notable now than ever before. Here's one good reliable source. It's behind a paywall. But if you click on the link without having visited the site recently, you should be able to see the article, in which case you can print it out and rely upon the printout without having to try to get behind the paywall again. (I always smile when I read the comment "still ludicrously handsome" at the start of the article, which I first read when it was published in print. I'm a bloke, so he's never turned me on, but I agree that he's good looking.) Bahnfrend (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. As I've disclosed on my user page, I do work currently in Parliament, I get moved around a lot, I don't take instruction or approval on anything I write. I contribute to articles on ALP figures, Liberal figures too. I've disclosed this to the Conflict of Interest Notice board [3] This will be the first time I've looked at a National. I don't disclose further because if I did people in Parliament would work out who I am and then people would start giving me instructions on what to write or try to change things on their articles. I just don't need that and it would distort the articles. This way I can keep everything balanced and neutral. The Little Platoon (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beautiful work @Ivar the Boneful:I'm hoping to build on what you've done in the next few weeks.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Hi The Little Platoon, it's good to see effort and research put into these biographies but much of this is written in a promotional and journalistic way, and includes a fair amount of extraneous details to that effect, so there will have to be some winding back. I have no problem with people who are sympathetic or even connected to the subject contributing to articles about them, but those contributions do need to be reviewed by other editors to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's principles. Therefore, I will try to retain as much of the factual, informative and encyclopaedic content as I can. It may also be worth to bring this article to the attention of the broader community of editors who contribute to Australian political articles. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 4 January 2021, from 06:48 to 21:38, approximately 80,000 bytes of information was eliminated from this article, including several dozen citations. As a result, there is now
  1. No mention in the intro of the subject's role in public life for which, the citations tell us, he is now best known, those being, historic gun reform, long partnership in the Howard government, economic reform and personal faith.
  2. No mention of the rearguard action fought against the extreme right party One Nation.
  3. No mention the subject's pathway into politics.
  4. No perspective on how the subject sat within his party.
  5. No material on the existential threat the National Party faced in the 1990s.
  6. No material on his role as an acting head of government, such as meeting with heads of states
  7. No material on relationship with John Howard
  8. No material on the subject's concerns about civics and free speech
  9. No material on how wartime trauma (or any details of actual service) of father which shaped the subject
  10. No material on the cultural significance of the family properties in Australian history
  11. No material on who his mother or sister were, and their significance to the subject.
  12. No material on the accidental killing of his sister which affected the life and outlook of the subject.
  13. No material on the beginning of the subject's faith, which is one of the things for which the subject is known today
  14. No material on the formation of historical and political outlook. None.
  15. No material on the beginnings of animosity of lifelong critic
  16. No material on the subject's setting of his political agenda in early speeches
  17. No material on early (and mistake-ridden) parliamentary work, on actual work in the shadow ministry.
  18. No material on context of moves to make the National Party more progressive.
  19. No material - zero - on the role of the subject in the "un-lose-able election of 1993"
  20. No material on the subject's first moves to bring market mechanisms into the wool industry.
  21. No material on the subject and the dramatic events of the 1996 election, the forces involved.
  22. No material on the popularity and sudden unpopularity of the subject amongst farmers
  23. No material on the actual content causing conflict in the Cabinet, nothing about his move to offer resignation.
  24. No material on the subject's stated beliefs about guns or the attempt to introduce gun reforms, no material on interaction with the Prime Minister during this turning point.
  25. No material on the diplomatic crisis that came with the subject visiting Taiwan.
  26. No material on the context to crisis in the Australian Wool Corporation which was reformed by the subject
  27. No material on conflict in the Cabinet on Wool, and how One Nation got a win over him.
  28. No material on the actual outcome of the lamb reforms, none at all.
  29. No material on the outcomes for the grain industry.
  30. No material on how the subject won political outcomes from his coalition partners for regional transport or water, material on significance of the transport infrastructure has been removed.
  31. No material on turmoil in the coalition
  32. No material on how the Party frayed in Queensland
  33. No material on the death of his son and the effects of that on his work and family and outlook
  34. No material on why he resigned from the Ministry and then parliament.

So, if we recall the Jimmy Wales vision of having all information available, this edit has removed a significant amount of information. Worse, there are now significant errors and inadequacies, such as:

  1. Events are out of order. So we have the subject in infancy, his mother dying, then we have his father fighting in North Africa (when he wasn't the father of anybody).
  2. Claims that he boarded at Hake House (did he? what source do you have?)
  3. Claims that he delayed the privatisation of Telstra (source?)
I do not regard this mass deletion as being an improvement to the article. My current thinking is to return it to its earlier form and prune from there. However, I am interested to see what other editors think. Should we keep this stunted version we currently see here? Unless there's strong support for it, I would like to see the full content version restored. Certainly some pruning could be done from there, but not the deletion of 80,000 bytes of information with all the material mentioned above lost.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Would be very interested in your response and input @Bahnfrend: @Captainmax: @Ivar the Boneful: @HiLo48: @MarioBayo: @Thescrubbythug: @BrownHairedGirl: @Rangasyd: @IgnorantArmies: @GeneralNotability: @StAnselm: @Ianblair23: @JackofOz: @Frickeg: @The Tepes: @Altormainstream: @Jackthart: @Onetwothreeip:.The Little Platoon (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First of all, I was doing a partial revert of your edits, albeit most of the content you added was removed, so calling it a deletion is misleading. Likewise, the removing of citations only happened when the content it was citing was removed.
I could have fully reverted all your edits, and that would have been much easier, but I respected that some of the content you added was legitimately encyclopaedic in nature. It appears that you developed the article in your sandbox, and then when you were finished, you copied and pasted much of that work into this article. In the future I would recommend you do the building of the content on the article itself, so that the small individual edits can be challenged, and you can get accustomed to writing in Wikipedia's encyclopaedic style without having most of the content removed after you've taken significant time and effort, and other editors can build on your content as you go along as well. It also appears that you removed (or re-wrote) much of the content that was previously on the article. I would also advise against this, as the previous version provided a structure to the article that was more in line with Wikipedia, whereas the structure you replaced it with was largely more of an essay or narrative in nature.
On many of your points I agree that the article should describe what you say it doesn't mention, and on other points there are only tenuous links to John Anderson that don't really merit being on this article. I would also disagree with you on certain points when you say that some things aren't mentioned, as indeed some of those things are mentioned in the article. There's obviously a lot of points you raised here, and I'm happy to discuss them in further detail.
To address your three points separated at the end; the biography includes things which are events, and things which aren't. Most biography articles mention the subject's parents and their occupations, but these are not listed as events so they cannot be out of order. That said, I wouldn't object to some rearrangement, and I largely left the order of events unchanged. As for the claims that he was a boarder of Hake House and that he delayed the privatisation of Telstra, these were written by you and I retained them.
Overall I would encourage you to contribute to articles for Australian politicians, keeping in mind what I have said above. I strongly welcome this, even if you only intend to contribute to articles for politicians that you support, but this would of course be subject to scrutiny by other editors. I would also urge you not to write content that is sympathetic to the subject, as much of your contributions have been. I'm also keen to hear what other editors have to say. All the best. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone through your long list and I've come to the following conclusions. 1, 3, 4, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, 30 and 31 are already included in the article, but more content about these things could be included. 2, 5, 7, 27, 28, 29 and 32 aren't included, but maybe should be. 6, 8, 9, 10, 19 and 21 aren't included, and likely shouldn't be included. 11, 12, 13, 16, 25, 33 and 34 are already included in the article, and likely don't need more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay @Onetwothreeip: let's proceed along the lines you've set out. Will be interesting to see how we do.The Little Platoon (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What lines are you referring to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm supporting what you've said above. I'm saying the article should, for the short term at least, develop along the lines of what you've recommended.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While you're both at it, I note that under the section heading "Cabinet Minister", we are told:

"In response to the Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed by a lone gunman, the Coalition government had passed the National Firearms Agreement, which created an agreement between the states and territories to ban automatic and semiautomatic weapons and create a national register for all other firearms.[citation needed]."

Now I just want to suggest that there is nothing in that that links it to the subject, which makes me wonder why it is there at all. So I trust that the deficiency will be rectified, or the line deleted. I further trust the future edits will keep a tighter adherence to relevance. Wouldn't want to be seen as even more promotional now, would we? Perhaps more pressing, there are an awful lot of "Citations needed" sprinkled throughout the article. Rather than adding similarly unsourced material, that needs a lot of work. Wayne 12:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed @Wayne: Needs proper citations throughout. At this point the article is very patchy. My hand is up. There's actually lots of stuff about how the subject leant on by the Liberal leader to bring in the gun reform. Currently stacks of stuff missing. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Determined effort to actually improve this article[edit]

I have begun the process of properly improving this article, keeping in mind the conversation above. If editors have ideas on how it may be improved, please add your thoughts here.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ivar the Boneful: I have the sense that you're an editor who is serious about improving articles. I have a new, proposed introduction, and I'd like your thoughts on what parts of the language are promotional. Id really appreciate it if you could be specific:
Anderson left farming to serve in Parliament, becoming leader of the National Party. He styled a collaborative party coalition[1] in government to eliminate net debt[2] secure an inter-state agreement on water[3] and "lead the world on gun reform."[4] He helped deliver four wins for what became Australia's second longest government; serving 19 years in the Parliament, ten years as a Cabinet Minister, six years as Deputy Prime Minister and, at key points, including 9/11, was the acting Prime Minister.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Blatant WP:POV violations. We are required to be neutral and objective. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your contribution @Onetwothreeip:. Though I must say it doesn't feel like you're trying to work towards an agreement here. It doesn't feel like you're following any of the basics, such as:
  • Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
  • Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
  • Civilly work towards agreement.
In fact it feels like you're being hostile. A great pity, in my view.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 12:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erasmus Sydney:, I think that you're right, @Onetwothreeip:'s comment could have been less adversarial. They perhaps should have said "issues" instead of "violations". But otherwise I quite agree with it; the suggested edit reads as being too ... congratulatory. I'm not even sure what "He styled a collaborative party coalition ..." even means, but I'd take a small wager that others in the Nats and Libs, going back over several decades, would claim that they had quite a bit to do with it as well. Consider that it also seems to imply that JA "eliminated nett debt". By himself? Really? The mention of his being acting PM at key points "including 9/11" is way beyond content for an intro, and to my mind is probably an effort at "gilding the lily". Beyond the intro change, see also my comment above (under heading "January 2021") about the gun buy-back. Sure, he was in cabinet at the time, but exactly what was his contribution? Why is it being mentioned other than to attempt to paint it as one of his achievements? Maybe it was one of his achievements, but if so state it as such with proper WP:RS And don't get me started on mentioning in the (existing) intro that his podcast featured "Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson". Seriously, just ... don't.
On a broader note I can't help but feeling that since the subject announced his new foray into politics that there seems to have been a spate of edits saying over-the-top nice things about him. (There have been approx 82 edits since January 21) He may deserve them. My memories of his time in parliament are not unflattering, but that doesn't mean that the WP article should become a vehicle for his promotion. A word of advice on avoiding being seen as promotional, for any sentence that you are going to add, ask yourself: "Would anybody find the wording to be a claim that goes beyond simple facts?" (Lots of adjectives are a good indicator of a problem.) And in a biographical article, where you are discussing an individual's contribution to a team effort, don't ascribe the team's achievement to the individual (unless clearly warranted). (Sorry, this turned into a much longer spiel than intended.) Wayne 12:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could be described as issues as much as violations but I've been dealing with their POV contributions to this and other Australian political biographies for months now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wayne aus: I'm really trying hard to work collaboratively here. I hope you've sensed that. It just doesn't help if you dismiss the whole suggested paragraph as too congratulatory. Let's start with a simple sentence. I'm recommending the following:
Anderson left farming to serve in Parliament, becoming leader of the National Party.
Given that the whole idea of wikipedia is that we help each other improve things, may I ask, how would you improve that sentence?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erasmus Sydney: I didn't dismiss the suggested intro just as being too congratulatory. I gave three (3) examples of what I was banging on about. a) the "styled a collaborative ..." bit, b) the 'net debt' bit, and c) the 'acting PM during 9/11' bit. So perhaps I had more to say than just a dismissal? To be even more specific, I don't think anything in the suggested redraft, except the periods of office holding (19 yrs, 10 yrs, 6 yrs etc), belongs in the intro. And even that breakdown of periods is perhaps overly specific for an intro.
I'm not really interested in doing a line-by-line reconstruction of the introduction. Apart from anything else it's a long road to an uncertain destination, wherein we eventually (re)discover that a whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
My thoughts on the existing introduction are that it's OK as it now is, with the sole reservation about naming two (2) examples of 'public figures' that JA talked to during his podcast. I don't see that naming those examples, or even his running a podcast in his post MP days, belongs in the introduction. (There may be a place for it in the body.) So let's think about the purpose of an intro in this context. I would suggest that it exists to summarise the reasons for the subject being notable. In doing so the reader has been a provided context of the article's content. Further, I think that conciseness and brevity (separately and in unison) are key features of an encyclopaedic article's introduction. So in the case that I raise about the podcast examples, at a summary level, does knowing that JA interviewed a Canadian psychologist and a former ALP leader fill in my understanding of the basis for JA's notability? My answer is "No. They are just examples of what he was doing later." Similarly, his having been a farmer before he entered politics is not, in and of itself, what makes him notable. It's just what he was doing before. So my preferred version of that intro would be pretty much as it is, less that whole sentence about the podcast. It then summarises his political career, which is why the article exists at all. (The final note about his 2021 tilt alerts me to his ongoing notability, so I'm OK with that.)
@Onetwothreeip:, or anybody else, care to say anything about the intro, as it is or with suggested improvements? Wayne 03:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again @Wayne aus: Two really important things. 1. the current introduction is nowhere near the standard of a good article. It's point form. It gives no sense of the person. 2. From my reading of the wiki guidelines (which I'm happy to share with you) the subject has to be note-able, but not every sentence has to be about something that's note-able. I don't want us to be confused on that. The subject is already notable. The content in the article simply needs to explain the subject. Otherwise we'd be quibbling on every single sentence (is this notable? Is the person notable in this regard?) Hope all that makes senseErasmus Sydney (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We aren't here to give a "sense" of the subject, we record the subject dispassionately, as we are not a magazine or newspaper. Wayne is not saying everything in the article has to be notable, they are talking about the lead section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, just to summarise, both you and @Wayne aus: feel the article can't be improved and, of the content I've put forward, you're rejecting it entirely, and have nothing by way of suggestion. In short, you're not working collaboratively, nor are you working to improve either the introduction or the article overall. Incidentally, of course any biography of a living person, that has an introduction, will attempt to give the sense of the subject at hand. An introduction doesn't give the whole story, it signals the wider story. It would be really nice if this discussion was less combative. Do you honestly think the way forward is to just keep slapping down suggestions and initiatives?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I have already said how the article can be improved. I assessed the content you added months ago, modifying and removing where necessary. What this article needs is more information. The only thing I reject entirely is your tone of writing, which is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. We don't "give the sense" or "signal the wider story". There are other places for writing stories or essays. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also did not say that either the article as a whole or the introduction are perfect. I said that the existing introduction is OK, and even that was qualified. The fact that two editors do not support your suggested changes does not constitute being combative or failing to be collaborative. Wayne 00:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so, in an attempt to show we all really have moved on from anything like being combative, I've started making incremental improvements. Today, I've tried to be collaborative from my side @Wayne aus: respecting your strong reaction to the mention of Jordan Peterson by removing his name and swapping in some other serious names, anyway you can see the edit here So, that's the start. I'll do some more citations.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I appreciate the gesture, @Erasmus Sydney:, I'm thinking I may not have made myself clear. It's not the mention of Peterson per se that elicited my 'strong reaction'. It's that mentioning what I assume is a small fraction of the guest list JA had while running a podcast to fill in his post-parliamentary days is, IMHO, not appropriate content for an introduction, regardless of who is being named. (In the article body, OK, I can live with that, but not in the intro, consistent with my ideas on intros that I have spelled out elsewhere in our discussions.) My labouring of the guy's name was intended as a kind of Reductio ad absurdum flourish, which seems to have gone awry. No matter. Please don't go making edits on the basis that it might be a token of goodwill. That is not what WP articles are for. Cheers. Wayne 13:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand you better now, and your perspective on introductions @Wayne aus: as to goodwill and all, heck, I'm just trying to be convivial. I don't know how it became so adversarial here. I'm keen to find ways to find consensus.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: I noticed you deleted some recent improvements I made to the article, reverting back to this edit instead. I just think that's such a pity. You haven't pointed out words or phrases you think could be better, you just delete the whole thing, calling it "inappropriate gratification and storytelling that doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia." It does feel, to me, like hounding, which isn't a long way from harassment. But let's see if we can play the ball. I would like to take your concerns about "story" on board. Can you point to a policy that suggests we shouldn't give a sense of story in a biography of a living person? If you can provide a principle that I haven't noticed til now, I'd be grateful for that. Something from the Manual for Style or the guidelines on writing about a living person. I can't see anything that suggests we shouldn't give a sense of the narrative of someone's life. And, if I may be blunt, it won't be sufficient to say that you don't think it's appropriate. If I conceded to an editor who just didn't like things, well, that would just be bullying wouldn't it. I'm asking you to point me to an element within a policy, most of which I believe I have read, though I may have missed something.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erasmus Sydney: Most edit summaries do not go into that level of detail, including yours. The talk pages are the appropriate place for that discussion. Describing your edit as inappropriate, gratifying, storytelling or unencyclopaedic does not constitute hounding or harassment, and you should withdraw such ridiculous claims.
Wikipedia is not a collection of essays (WP:NOTESSAY) or a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS). We also cannot write articles to be sympathetic of the subject (WP:NPOV, WP:IMPARTIAL). Per WP:TONE, encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable, which is clearly failed by adding "Anderson would later admit that he had no personal passion for politics." Hope this helps. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Gallagher, Paul (2006). Faith and Duty: The John Anderson Story. Sydney: Random House. p. 193. ISBN ISBN9781741665642. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  2. ^ Crosby, Mark. "FactCheck: has Australia's net debt doubled under the current government?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2021-04-13.
  3. ^ "Anderson follows his heart, steps down". Australian Financial Review. 2005-06-24. Retrieved 2021-04-13.
  4. ^ Alpers, Philip; Ghazarian, Zareh (Apr 2019). "The 'perfect storm' of gun control: From policy inertia to world leader". In Luetjens, Joannah; Mintrom, Michael; ' Hart, Paul (eds.). Successful Public Policy (PDF). Canberra: ANU Press. pp. 207–233. ISBN 9781760462796.
  5. ^ "John Anderson". Q+A. 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2021-04-13.


My edit to Cabinet Minister section[edit]

I have just deleted the statement:

In response to the Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed by a lone gunman, the Coalition government had passed the National Firearms Agreement, which created an agreement between the states and territories to ban automatic and semiautomatic weapons and create a national register for all other firearms.[citation needed]

The statement, as noted, has no reference, and fails to elaborate the role JA played other than implying him being a member of cabinet (by virtue of the section in which the assertion occurs) at the time. Did he support or oppose the change? I'd be perfectly happy to have the topic covered if it was properly reffed and elaborated his role. Without those, to me it smacks of puffery. I note that I first raised this issue in Talk, several weeks ago (10 March) at the bottom of the section titled "January 2021" and nobody has argued why it should be retained. Wayne 03:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
After posting the above, I noticed that the same section has no refs at all. None, zip, zilch , nada. For a BLP this is a pretty basic requirement. So I tagged it accordingly. Wayne 03:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wayne aus: I agree with you! The current state of the article is absolutely woeful. As noted above, there are at least 34 problems with it - including un-sourced material. But it seems dominant editors on this page aren't interested in allowing improvements. I have received no useful guidance from anyone on this page with how. Just shut downs. Really discouraging. I can see why, every day, more and more volunteers on wikipedia give up for good.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Erasmus Sydney: Actually, I don't think the list includes "scads of unsourced material" as an item, so that's 35. But I jest. The list itself is a tad problematic. On one hand, to cover all of the material it comprises in a meaningful way, will require a fairly hefty book, and WP is not a venue for publishing books. On the other hand, many of the topics in the list seem to me, at first blush, to be unlikely to be covered by sources that are both readily accessible and adequately WP:RS compliant. On my third hand (Yes, I do. Doesn't everybody?) some of the topics are already mentioned in the article, (perhaps they weren't when it was compiled) but not all in a way that always demonstrates relevance, and some of those are unsourced assertions. But at the end of the day I'm not sure what I can advise you. Perhaps instead of trying to insert new or vary existing material, you could try to find WP:RSs for the numerous "citation needed" tags that are already there? That would seem to me to be this article's most glaring weakness1, and thus a ready source of major improvement. But, if you are determined to incorporate all 34 points on the list into the article, and can demonstrate i) WP:RS for all of them, ii) close, relevant connection to JA, and iii) fit it all into the sensible scope of a WP BLP2, then go your hardest. (Sorry, but I'm not interested enough in the subject to undertake even a fraction of that research.)
1(Along with that mention in the existing intro of a Canadian psychologist. (murmurs to self: "Don't go there. Don't go there."))
2 i.e Much less than even a very short book. Wayne 11:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wayne aus:, I wish all editor interactions were like the one you've lead above. Egads! Warmth and humour! And beneath it, some sage advice. Just crack on with the citations for the moment. Got it. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsuitable refs to unsupported claims. (u.s.w.)[edit]

I have just redacted the following passage:
" ... perhaps most well known and most viewed on his YouTube Channel, public intellectual and psychologist, Jordan B. Peterson [1] [2]
I will be surprised if I need to explain why, but in brief: The youtube videos cited as refs are not WP:RS. They are recordings of interviews done by the subject of the article. The other gratuitous link to JA's youtube channel serves no purpose and would appear to promotional. And the whole thing is kicked off with "perhaps". nuff said.
I have no issue of (with) having Peterson's name added to the list of names that JA has interviewed, (and I left it there) but the rest of it is guff. Wayne 12:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
(Edit: changed "of" to "with".Wayne 12:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]