Talk:John Kerr (governor-general)

message: As noted WP:BLP does not allow for unsourced defamatory material on article or discussion pages. I haven't seen any credible sources for the material so far mentioned and I am removing this discussion for this talk page and that of Paul Keating's. I trust that this is acceptable to the reasonable editors participating in the discussion. --Jumbo 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: The information under "Kerr as Governor-General" seems to contradict statements  in Australian constitutional crisis of 1975.  The Kerr article says that no Labor candidates were even proposed:
:Very unwisely, the Queensland Labor Party refused to submit the three names Peterson required, and Albert Field was appointed by the Queensland Parliament to fill the position.
while the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975 article states that Labor's proposed candidate was refused in favour of Field:
: On 3 September, Bjelke-Petersen refused the Labor Party's candidate as replacement Senator, Mal Colston, in favour of obscure french-polisher Albert Patrick Field, a Labor Party member but openly critical of the Whitlam government.
As well, the statement from this article (i.e. the Kerr one) is somewhat POV with the "Very unwisely, " bit.  It also gets Bjelke-Petersen's name wrong in two different ways, though I've fixed that. --Saforrest 14:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and contradictory statements 

message: Wikipedia already has an article containing every detail of the constitutional crisis of 1975. Is there really a need to repeat the whole thing on Kerr's page? I feel that since this is a biography, it would be more appropriate to simply have a very brief discussion of the crisis and the dismissal (with a link to the main article of course), followed by the effect on Kerr's public and private life. Any objections?--EDH 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need so much detail on November 1975? 

message: This page got renamed from John Kerr to John Kerr (justice) without discussion. I tried to rename it back, but it didn't quite work, but now at least John Kerr is a redirect to John Kerr (justice). I think it is correct that John Kerr points to this (Sir) John Kerr, because (a) there are lots of Wikipedia links which assume John Kerr is Sir John Kerr (there are over 100, and looks to me like well over half assume this one), and (b) I didn't see any evidence that any of the others rivaled this one in historical importance, judging by the size of their articles. Anyway, if anyone wants to change John Kerr to point to the disambiguation page, bear in mind that the "move" page instructions say, "You (the person doing the move) are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go." Peter Ballard (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename partly reversed 

message: We don't really know, do we? Is this an issue of fact, or POV? I can think of the referendum in which WA voted to secede, another in which military conscription was rejected, another in which Aboriginal people were allowed into the human race, another in which we opted for the monarchy rather than a party-run republic. All more significant, imho, than an issue drummed up by the vanity and pretensions of political parties and leaders, over which only an impassioned few have maintained any rage. :) Bjenks (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But ... not a single one of those examples was what I'd consider a "constitutional crisis".  They were all referendums conducted in a very orderly manner, very much in accordance with law and with the constitution in particular.   Their outcomes were all implemented (WA aside, but that has a curious history).  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on all counts. However, it can been argued that the dimissal was less a "crisis" in itself than a controversial action to avert an impending constitutional crisis. A remedial election was the least-worst outcome under constitutional law. The proposed alternative, federal government without parliamentary supply, would have been more than unlawful—it risked negating the very basis of law. Later Libs, like Howard or Costello, might have grasped with eagerness the precedent to privatise the entire government - the mother of all crises for our kind of democracy! Bjenks (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We could speculate all day about what ifs, but I'm not getting into that.  The sentence at issue reads: "He dismissed the Labor government of Gough Whitlam on 11 November 1975, marking the climax of the most significant constitutional crisis in Australian history."   We're not saying the dismissal itself was a crisis (although it certainly felt like one to many people because ... well, it's obvious why).  But it was an unarguably pivotal event in the entire circumstances that lead up to it and followed it.  Nothing remotely like those circumstances had ever happened before in Australia, and have never happened since.  Even Phillip Game's dismissal of Jack Lang was not really comparable, apart from the fact of the dismissal.  1975 Australian constitutional crisis says: "It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australia's history", where "It" refers to all the events, not just the dismissal.  If you're unhappy with that set of words, maybe you'd like to argue the toss at that talk page.  But here's not really the place, I think. --  JackofOz (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the opinion is not worth contesting. I really don't know enough to do so. Bjenks (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ". . .the most significant"? 

message: No point repeating the question.  Anyone know the answer? --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I got it.  It was 27 February 1974.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: When was Kerr's appointment as Governor-General announced?

message: I note a claim that Gough Whitlam considered advising the Queen to terminate Sir John Kerr's commission, using as a source "Matters for Judgement", Kerr's autobiography. That source does not say that the Queen is the head of state, and as the matter is disputed in Australia, it is not Wikipedia's place to support one view or the other. --Pete (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really following you, Pete. The only place the term "Head of State" is mentioned is "... [Whitlam] then offered the post to Sir John, who accepted on condition that he could expect to have ten years in the office, and that he could represent Australia overseas as Head of State".  That is sourced to p. 200 of Barry Jones' A Thinking Reed, and it is the exact words that Jones used.  I don't actually know what Jones's personal position on the head of state dispute is, but I'd be very surprised if he favoured the view that the Governor-General is head of state.  Hence, I assume he was repeating the words that Kerr used in his discussions with Whitlam.   That is, it was Kerr's own stated condition that he could be accorded the status of Head of State when representing Australia overseas.  That, of course, does not make him the head of state.  Maybe the Jones quote should be put in quotes, to make this distinction clearer.  --  ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 02:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I should have been more explicit. In a sweat to do something else, off-wiki, you know how it is. I was looking at something else and a google search came up with a reference in this article, and I changed the wording to clarify the action. Another editor reverted me, so I made a note here to kick off discussion in case it turned into a thing.I've got no problem with the remaining reference, though I'd probably not capitalise the title. --Pete (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head of State 

message: Just a query...did Kerr die in London as opposed to Sydney? 58.107.27.39 (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  death of kerr 

message: I notice a slew of "citation needed" tags added to the article. The statements in question are all sourced in Paul Kelly's excellent book 1975, which is listed as a general reference. I shall hunt through and add the page numbers when I get a chance - at a more civilised hour! - so I would be obliged if there were no mass deletions for the time being. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Kerr (governor-general). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013141348/http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/old_site/judges/former/kerr.html to http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/old_site/judges/former/kerr.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Kerr (governor-general). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420023235/https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC19740917/%24file/442LC015.PDF to https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC19740917/%24file/442LC015.PDF
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Kerr (governor-general). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100428092454/http://moadoph.gov.au/exhibitions/online/dismissed/prologue.htm to http://moadoph.gov.au/exhibitions/online/dismissed/prologue.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I remember reading an article in 1995 on the 20th anniversary of the Dismissal that while Kerr did not regret dismissing Whitlam he however did not forgive Fraser for not accepting much of the blame for his part in it.
On this Kerr had no intention of ever catching up with Fraser and this should be included in the article. 122.106.83.10 (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerr did not forgive Fraser 

message: The "Palace Letters" (a set of 211 letters between the Queen, her representatives, and then governor general John Kerr in the lead-up to Whitlam’s dismissal) were released on Tuesday July 14th 2020. I assume editors will wish to interleave their contents into the article. The link to a Guardian article about the set is here: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/14/better-for-her-majesty-not-to-know-palace-letters-reveal-queens-role-in-sacking-of-australian-pm-whitlam
:More analysis: https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/07/17/john-kerr-palace-letters-whitlam-cia/ 50.194.115.156 (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Palace Letters" 

message: This paragraph seems rather irrelevant, seems unsubstantiated considering he had multiple wives and children, and honestly just doesn’t flow very well with the rest of the text. Any thoughts on whether there should be an edit to remove?
”After Kerr's death, his former embittered close friend, Whitlam cabinet member James McClelland, claimed that Kerr had long aspired to be "top dog in Australia"; that Kerr had once made a pass at him; and that the Dismissal could only be fully understood if Kerr's alleged repressed homosexuality was factored in—that an infatuation with Whitlam had become one for Fraser.” DKing1908 (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance?