Talk:Harold Holt

message: In much the same way that I remember hearing of JFK's death, Harold Holt's demise was a singular moment. Steve Smith & I had just spent three weeks backpacking in SW Tasmania. The first humans we had seen in half a month turned up on the trail & gave us the news - in January!. Having seen the LBJ imperial procession in downtown Sydney in October '66 - my first thought was that Oz is a truly free society - Imagine Nixon hitting the beach solo! Along the same lines, several years earlier whilst hitchhiking from the Big Smoke to Wagga Wagga (my home town), a big black limo stopped for me, - the blokes in front informed me that I was sitting where Menzies "planted his bum". I have lived in the Western United States for the last three decades & I can say with certainty that a) no US President will ever go solo ocean swimming, and that b) no US President's limo will ever pick up a hitchhiker.
Is one society more free than the other? - cheers Dave.
:That is all fair comment, but it is also fair to note that no Australian PM has ever been assassinated (there has never even been an attempt), whereas four US Presidents have been assassinated, so it is hardly surprising that their security is much tighter. Adam 06:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Death

message: The 2005 Age article talks of an inquest yet to be held, so presumably it wasn't held in 2003 as the SMH story implies. Pete 11:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inquest

message: Adam, I don't disagree with this assessment.  But I though the coroner's verdict made that sort of irrelevant now.  It might perhaps better follow the text about the coroner's verdict.  I'm not really fussed either way.  Cheers JackofOz 06:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We've includedabout as much as Grey's theory as needs be mentioned in this biographical article, given the requirements for credible sources. Perhaps there is a need for a new article on alternate theories for Holt's death, where there would be more latitude? --Pete 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly; an acquaintaince of mine was at the beach and told me that Holt had been drinking when he chatted to her, but she kept quiet about it for ages, I suppose it was likely to be too much trouble mentioning it.Polypipe Wrangler 12:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think you were misinformed because there were only 4 witnesses on the beach.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Likely explanation for Holt's death

message: [Uncited claim about a person categorised as disappeared deleted by Andjam (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit changed into an addition. It is considered bad form to edit someone else's comments. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's publicised now, if not necessarily "published".  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Private Holt

message: This article is in categorised as missing persons, so is it fair to say "Harold Holt died on..." or should it say "...went missing on..."
Holt is not missing, he is legally dead. Adam 14:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing or dead?

message: More of a query than anything: Holt's date of death preceeds the end of his commission as Prime Minister. While I realise that McEwen wouldn't have been immediately sworn in because of the hope of finding Holt, given that his death was (as I understnad it) was retrospectively deemed to be the date of his disappearance, wouldn't his commission also be legally terminated by his death. Thus, if his death is put as 17 December then his commission should also be taken to have ended on that date? Now I know that would leave the period 17 December - 20 December where Australia actually had no commissioned PM but is that any more ludicrous than a dead man being commissioned? Well, it's all more academic than anything but I was just curious if there were any constitutional law experts out there... Shadow007 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Is this established by law or custom? Shadow007 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death 

message: Someone has recently done an extensive rewrite and expansion of this article. Unfortunately, it was deficient in several respects.
* The huge section on events in the Liberal Party after Holt's death is irrelevant.
* A complete history of Australia's involvement in Vietnam is irrelevant (as are the author's opinions about it)
* The discussion of Menzies' views on the monarchy and the US alliance is irrelevant (also full of opinions)
* The author's opinions on what is "unfortunate", "significant", "historic" etc, and on whether Menzies was "fawning" or an "autocrat" etc, do not belong in the article. Nor does the usual tiresome eulogising of Whitlam.
* The 1967 referendum (not plebiscite) did not change the citizenship status of indigenous Australians (an endlessly repeated error).
* Annabelle Rankin was not the first woman federal minister.
* All this new content is largely unsourced. I know where it comes from (Alan Reid) but the reader doesn't. Reid was an dreadful old gossip and as a hired hack of the Packers his material must be seen as partisan journalism, not history. All this stuff about Holt's last months is pure speculation on Reid's part.
* Generally this material is journalistic, over-written, over-opinionated and dotted with errors of fact. I have cleaned up the worst of it but more editing is needed. It does not meet current Wikipedia standards on sourcing. Adam 07:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of recent expanded article

message: Adam -- I acknowledge and apoligize for any shortcomings in the factual accuracy, language and referencing of my additions to this article. Sorry about that -- I can only plead that I have had to make most of the editorial changes "on the fly" and from memory, without direct access to my reference material, since I have no internet access at home at present. Also, some of the locations I have been using (e.g. my local public library) have somewhat troublesome and unreliable web access and on occasion I have lost significant portions of text during editing. PLEASE consider it a work in progress. I am still learning the Wiki referencing rules and techniques, and any advice on this would be appreciated. 
I have to say that generally I found your comments somewhat bitchy and pejorative, however, apart from that, I also have to take specific issue with several of the points you raised: 
*Whilst I agree that a lengthy discussion of Australia's role Vietnam ca. 1967 is best confined to the major articles on the conflict, some mention of Holt's significant personal role in promoting and expanding Australia's involvement is IMO essential. Also, whilst I agree that the language has to be carefully considered (and I was probably overly opinionated) I definitely feel that the relationship between Holt and Johnson needs to be discussed here. I think that informed opinions -- such as Alan Renouf's stated view that Holt had in effect been seduced by his "friendship" with Johnson -- need to be canvassed, not only because of its significance at the time, but also in terms of the ongoing power relationship between the USA and Australia, up to and inlcuding the current "friendship" between Mr Howard and Mr Bush, which has clear and obvious parallels with the Holt-Johnson dynamic.
*I am unsure how I was "eulogising" Whitlam? There is no question that he was a formidable opponent, both in parliament and in the media, that in the context of the times he was vastly superior to Calwell as a leader, and that he hurt Holt and the government significantly over the VIP planes affair. (BTW -- strictly speaking one can only eulogise somebody after they are dead.)
* I strongly dispute the claim that a discussion 1967-68 leadership struggle is irrelevant. Holt's disappearance brought about McEwen's appointment as caretaker PM, which in turn triggered the Xmas '67 leadership crisis, an event that showed serious cracks in Coalition unity for the first time, and one that had the obvious potential to split the Coalition if mishandled. Further, McEwen's veto of McMahon took him out of the running for PM until after McEwen's retirement and led directly to the election of Gorton. All this stems DIRECTLY from Holt's unexpected death -- how can it be irrelevant?
*I agree that Reid was a highly partisan commentator and that this needs to be stated -- e.g. it is well known that he (and Packer) were McMahon supporters and that Reid disliked Gorton intensely. However, his stature as the leader of the parlimentary press gallery at the time, and the most senior political correspondent of his day, surely deserves some respect? There can be no question about the breadth and depth of his 'insider' political knowledge, and whilst his speculations need to be acknowledged as such (which I think(?) I did), they ought to be included when they are relevant, since he is one of the few non-academic commentators of the day who wrote about Holt in any detail. I feel strongly that his remarks about matters such as reputed growing dissension within the Liberal Party prior to Holt's death and Holt's possible health problems are at least as acceptable for inclusion as the laughable urban myths about Holt being abducted by UFOs and the like.
Dunks 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions to Holt article 

message: Compare this:
*The transfer of power from Menzies to Holt in February 1966 was unproblematic, and at the federal election later that year the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed Holt, re-electing the Holt-McEwen Coalition government with 56% of the two party preferred vote. As of 2007, this stands as the greatest winning margin at a federal election in Australian political history.
with this:
*The Coalition scored a stunning victory over the ALP, winning many former ALP seats and sweeping back into power with (at the time) the largest parliamentary majority since Federation.
Is it still the greatest majority since Federation?  I thought that Fraser did better in 1975.  In any case, one of these sentences will need to be changed.  --  JackofOz 08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1966 general election record majority

message:  tag was added by User :Johnfos on 4 November.  I have asked the user to be more specific rather than the blanket request given that there are references at the bottom of the article - mainly books plus also the archives web site.  In line citations aren't mandatory but wil be added for any fact that is challenged.  I can't see anything out of the common knowledge domain in the article at present.--Golden Wattle  talk 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional cites sought 

message: There's a couple of red links scattered through, which nevers looks good in an article looking for FA/GA status. I'm going to throw together an article on Charles ("Ceb") Barnes, so at least there is an article on each member of Holt's first ministry and then see what others I can do. --Roisterer (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filling in red links 

message: Harold Holt is currently in :Category:Disappeared people and :Category:1967 deaths. However, disappeared people is a wikipedia BLP maintainence category, only for those people whose subsequent fate is unknown (ie, we don't know whether the person is alive or dead) - and it explicitly states that it is contradictory with the dead people categories. So either disappeared people goes, or 1967 deaths goes.
The fact that Holt would be/is almost 100 years old isn't a factor as far as BLP goes - the yardstick is 123 years. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still in the contradictory categories. Andjam (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Questions: 1) Has he been declared legally dead? 2) Can you point out where exactly you see the contradiction of :Category:Disappeared people. What I see is that the category is "for people who went missing and whose subsequent fate remains a mystery" which wouldn't be in contradiction with being declared dead at a certain point. Our internal maintenance criteria are a secondary problem as the cats are mostly for the readers.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to 2), it is referring to those whose current fate is a mystery (hence the reference in the category to excluding people born pre-1885). Andjam (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: While not particular concerned by the possible contradiction of using both categories at the same time myself, reading the article on Holt he is presumed dead drowning which isn't exactly what "a person who has disappeared for no known reason" refers to. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the Victorian Coroner (as in this reference in the article) is a WP:Reliable Source. I say we should follow his lead and declare Holt a 1967 death. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory categories 

message: This page lists Zara Kate Dickens, but the link goes to a page with spelling Zara Kate Dickins.
Google cites both, hinting that Dickens is more likely, but I didn't see anything definitive. Perhaps someone more familiar with the situation can fix one or the other.--SPhilbrickT 02:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always understood it was Dickins.  I've edited this page.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spouse name 

message: I reviewed my father's medical records with Peter Butt for his film the PM IS Missing and Dr Marcus Faunce did not prescribe opitates to Harold Holt prior to his disappearance. The film doesn't suggest this. Marc knew opiates well as he was an excellent palliative care physician, but he also knew that Holt would push his luck physically and continue to strain his shoulder with the masking effect of the morphine. Holt was prescribed the opiates by a Melbourne doctor.Fauncet (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prescription of opiates 

message: :In 1983, <snipped> published a controversial book in which he claimed that Holt had been an agent for the People's Republic of China and that he had been picked up by a Chinese submarine off Portsea and taken to China.[5]
Is there any particular reason for China here, other then geography and the China is evil mentality that persisted then (and er the questionable 'mental faculties' of the author/proposer of this theory)? The article doesn't seem to mention a close connection of HH with China and in fact he seems to have had a close connection to the US and expanded Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war, hardly seeming to be something a Chinese agent would do (well perhaps if it was part of a wider plan but he disappeared before he could do anything major with whatever advantage gained)... But perhaps the theory is more complicated or there's something I'm missing. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This has now been removed, which I object to. It is a famous, though ridiculous, theory. As to your question, I think you're missing the fact that conspiracy theories don't need to make sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should put it back again. Finding sources is pretty easy with Google. Yes, it's gloriously ridiculous and total fantasy, but it is probably the thing most associated with Holt in the minds of the public.--Pete (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no objections for a year, I have added it back in.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: I came across an article in The Age from 1969 discussing plans to replace Holt around six months before his death. According to the report, it was commonly believed that senior Liberals were plotting to put Gorton forward because of Holt's drop in popularity, etc. Gorton denied any knowledge. Dudley Erwin said he had indeed participated in such talks, but denied it was part of a plot. They were contingency plans following Holt's collapse in Erwin's office (Speaker Aston and Ainsley Gotto were also there). According to Erwin he, and Holt for that matter, believed the "turn" was a heart attack, so he felt it his duty as whip to plan for HOlt's death or incapacity.
I'm not sure if this should be included or, if so, exactly where or how to best add it. I therefore leave it to more regular editors of this article to decide. -Rrius (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across another article, again looking for something else, this one from The Sydney Morning Herald. It was written after Alan Reid's The Gorton Experiment (listed in our article under "Further reading"). In the book, Reid claimed that Gorton "was being groomed" for the top job before Holt's death. In response, Gorton said he told Erwin he would not be part of any plot and if there was a move he would tell Holt and do his best to defeat it. Erwin backed up his comments, which would tend to contradict his earlier statement that there was no attempted plot, merely contingency plans. Gorton's comments appeared in "a Sunday newspaper" on 8 August 1971, so if anyone has access to a database or microfilm, there may be something useful to be gleaned. -Rrius (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's sufficient to note that there was unrest in the party. I've just deleted a paragraph, apparently sourced to Reid, about a meeting between Erwin and Holt that never took place. I think in an encyclopedia article which should concentrate on what did happen, rather than rehashing press gallery speculation about ancient leadership plots.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holt's collapse and an early plan to install Gorton 

message: I consider the Sydney Daily Telegraph's "Sydney Confidential" gossip columns to be of a tabloid nature at best, and as such estopped by Wikipedia policy, and conveying pure gossip by any standards at all. Collect (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: *Try   from your imputed list: Gillespie called it an "emotional affair based on 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect"  which seems rather more platonic than mistressy. Sorry - sensationalist tabloidism to present here as a "mistress" who was not even staying at the same house. Collect (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

text: I referred to constant rumours since the Cheviot tragedy that she and Harold were having an affair. Imprudently, she did not deny the rumours. 'Of course, Simon', she said, 'what is your interpretation of an affair?'. I told her. She said that there were various types of affairs - intimate affairs and sordid affairs and emotional affairs. Herds with Harold, she said, was an emotional affair based on mutual admiration and respect."
p276
[quoting Edward St John] "But was it, rather, an act of bravado in front of a woman whom he was courting? It's still a bit of a mystery to me, as I think it is to most people."
p304
"The number and names of the women with whom he had intimate relationships remains unclear. Zara's outburst that her husband had scores of women over the years was probably designed to humiliate Marjorie Gillespie and her assertion that she was special, more than anything else. It seems that these relationships were largely therapeutic. He explained to one Cabinet colleague that he had someone to whom he was very close in Canberra because it made parliamentary sittings easier to endure. He was not, however, attempting to exclude infidelity."
p305
"Unfortunately, Zara's last years were marked by personal bitterness. In early 1988, she launched an attack on Marjorie Gillespie in the Sydney Morning Herald after Gillespie claimed that Harold was planning to leave Zara for her. This led Zara to reveal that Holt had had a number of lovers around Australia and overseas."
I have no particular opinion on what to say here, I'm just including the context because I happened to have a very reliable source on my shelf. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

text: It seems well sourced and worthy of inclusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found an article in the Smithsonian magazine that cites various books, the official report, and - shucks! - the internet articles brought up in this discussion. Problem solved, can we move on? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Yep, it's time this was brought to a holt.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Badumm-tshh! EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Is nice but does not support use of "lover" as statement of fact, and mentions Gillespie only in the context of some people who suggested the death was faked so that Holt could run off with her.  It appears, however, that his death was not faked. Collect (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a whole lot more evidence for "lover" than that Holt's death was faked so that Holt could run off with her. I even quoted the relevant bits of the Frame biography of Holt above. I am not particularly bothered how this article refers to Marjorie Gillespie (there are various ways that evidence could be summarised and I am not invested in any of them), but "Also on the beach was Marjorie Gillespie, and some suspected Holt faked his death in order to run away with her" is about the most abjectly silly way I could imagine to reference it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous. There has just been an RfC on this. Maybe we could add more sources on this point, but the Smithsonian article says: "It was also widely believed that Holt had been having an affair with Marjorie Gillespie. (That much was true; Zara Holt’s memoirs confirmed that he had had a number of extramarital affairs, and years later Gillespie acknowledged that she’d had a long relationship with him.)" The statement is well-sourced, and relevant, and you have to respect the RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smithsonian source 

message: I worded the Marjorie Gillespie line to precisely conform with the Smithsonian source.  It is a violation of WP:RS to use a source which does not back the claim it is used for.   If Gillespie is alive, then it also violates WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read each and every source cited by the Smithsonian? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the source given for the claim in its entirety - which is what Wikipedia requires.  Sources which do not back the claims made for them are improper.  And I am required to post concerning any BLP or RS issue for reasons which are absolutely irrelevant here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth Marjorie Pamela Gillespie died in 2012. Why are you continuing to start new discussions on the same topic?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: True - but others including her husband etc. appear to be quite alive.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty more (and more reliable and detailed) sources than the Smithsonian about the nature of Gillespie's relationship with Holt, and that you seem insistent on both ignoring them and adding laughable (and not nearly so well sourced) conspiracy theories to the article suggests that, whatever your eclectic angle here, it isn't either a BLP or an RS concern. Summarise the sources, stop adding random conspiracy theories, and this dispute ceases to exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The source actually cited uses the term "rumour" yet you insist on edit war to state that she was Holt's lover in Wikipedia's voice.   Even when you say my wording was ok -- you go back to the wording which violates policy.  If you find my wording ok, then simply use the wording supported by the source.  You are violating the letter and spirit of WP:RS in misusing Wikipedia's voice to make a claim of "fact" not made as "fact" in the source.  Collect (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are completely ignoring the previous discussion.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "the source". There are many sources. You are obsessed with one source, which is way less comprehensive and less reliable than the sources everyone else here are working from. I have made clear that I am not particularly fussed how one summarises the sources about the relationship between Holt and Gillespie (which could reasonably be worded any number of ways because there is quite a lot written about it, probably more than can be said as succinctly as in any version of this article so far), but I am going to resist any silliness to ditch the actually-sourced-to-reliable-sources bits and add fantastical conspiracy theories in their place. I edit conflicted with Jack, but yes, you're ignoring more reliable and detailed sources than the one you're obsessed with to the point where it's getting a bit bizarre. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

text: We have abundant evidence as to the nature of their relationship in Tom Frame's biography and Zara Holt's memoirs, and negligible reliable evidence for your determined claim about them running off together. Since the Frame book was explicitly quoted on this very page since the "gossip column" you just tried to use to justify your trolling, yeah, sorry, that effort gets an F. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As I made no such "claim" at all I fear you are off the deep end -- the Smithsonian Magazine mentions Gillespie and the rumours about faking a death.   If we use a source, we use what the source says and not wrench it out of the context of the source.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  using a source to make a claim not backed by the source 

message: As a source. 
The salient quote on page 139 is that Gillespie stated she and Holt had "(an emotional affair based on) 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect'" 
In short - no claim of wonderful physical sex befitting "lovers" as such unless you have a strange concept of orgasmic sex being based on "intellectual admiration."    What the source would support is that "Gillespie stated she had an affair based on 'mutual intellectual admiration and respect',"    and that her "affair" was neither "intimate" nor "sordid."
That source, in fact, makes no claim of "lover" in the usual sense of the word in English of being "sex partner" at all.   And I would think a "sex partner" would generally qualify as "intimate" which Gillespie clearly denied.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the other sources as much as you want. I will not engage (and continue to revert) anyone who refuses to read reliable sources and obsesses about trivial ones or quotes reliable ones out of context, even when they're quoted to him on full, for the purposes of trolling real editors and adding poorly sourced, BLP-violating conspiracy theories. If you want to read the damn sources and discuss appropriate wording, then you might actually find an audience here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read all the damn sources provided - and this last one had been given before, and I quoted it before, and it still says the same damn things it said before.  It has not changed at all.  And if you wish to argue that an affair which was denied to be intimate by the 'lover'  was "intimate", then damn well find a source making that as a claim of fact.  So far, the sources actually given support "rumour" but nothing much else at all. Collect (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

text: The books of Tom Frame and Zara Holt. You continue to ignore the quoted parts of the former on this page, otherwise you'd know "denied to be intimate by the lover" is patent bullshit. Like, what do you hope to achieve by citing unreliable sources and out of context quotes when you've got authoritative book sources to compare them to? Is annoying a bunch of dedicated Wikipedia editors for shits and giggles that fun? The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "She had also revealed in 1988 that she was 'Harold Holt's lover'—a claim repeated in several magazines and newspapers." This is the quote from the ANU source. For the love of God, please release us from this tireless escapade. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear you missed the elucidation which was then given -- which said she denied any "intimate" relationship.  Amazingly enough, it immediately follows the words you find -- and generally speaking, when such an elucidation is made, it is the elucidation which should be used.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear you missed the fact that the quote is "lover", not "intimate". Your personal understanding or the lack thereof is irrelevant here. Besides, you have already been warned about your own multiple policy violations and abuse. You have surpassed WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT a long while ago. Take it to a board if you must, but THIS IS OVER. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did.  And the other editor at RS/N - agreed with me about the source. Collect (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inside the Canberra Press Gallery: Life in the Wedding Cake of Old Parliament House 

message: As stated in the heading. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems a clear consensus here. I understand that Collect doesn't want the topic mentioned, but the consensus is in favour of including it. There are multiple sources and the issue seems notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Do we need an uninvolved party to place the close tags or can we do it ourselves? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And again -- where policy is involved, WP:CONSENSUS says we must adhere to policy.  In the case at hand, misuse of sources is, indeed, a policy violation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There will be no more of this nonsense. I kindly advise you to take a break from this page. There is literally not a single editor that agrees with you here. G'day. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it occurred to you that policies are not just suggestions  Your apparent threat is inane here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no threat. You have exhausted this RfC. You requested more opinions and they all disagree with you. Good faith is far behind you at this point. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 14:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second request to cease all further attempts at disputing the Gillespie issue 

message: Wikipedia at its worst. The closure had little relation to the discussion and was a reward for bad behaviour.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the closing argument goes directly against consensus of the discussion and reeks of POV. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 09:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tabloid tittle-tattle". The PM went missing. I think it's notable who was there.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Context suggests that comment was about the lover bit, not her presence. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

text: You can appeal any RfC close by any admin at WP:ANI. That said, this is Wikipedia: we don't do vote counting, we weight the strength of arguments. That's by design. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, we weigh the arguments. All the arguments, all of the evidence - including Gillespie's own admission to being "Harold Holt's lover" (the closing argument denies that quote altogether), as well as the quotes by several people who were close to Holt. The closing should be done in a highly WP:NPOV fashion, and on those grounds alone it should be disqualified, as the closing editor made it abundantly clear that they see it as "tabloid tittle-tattle" (in spite of the subject being covered by multiple notable people) and that they would be happy if the item were removed altogether. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't think an independent admin weighing the arguments might be less susceptible to confirmation bias than a determined proponent of one side weighing up their own arguments? Hmmm? Anyway, I have told you where to go if you want to challenge the close. We're done here. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , you didn't even read the discussion. I quote from what you said "even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here" - uh, she did it incredibly prominently in the most respected broadsheet newspaper in the country. I didn't challenge it because the result in the article wasn't unreasonable, but your closing rant was patently ridiculous, and if your idea of "weighing the arguments" involves skimming over most of the quoted sources because you can't be bothered, you should find a better use of your time on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

text: An "affair" sans being "intimate" at all, and based on intellectual values?  And this becomes "lover" as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice?   Sorry - by that token a robot could be a "lover" of another robot <g>.  The use appears to be closer to that of a "wine lover" than of a "sexual lover."   Therein lies the root of the problem - and why using "rumoured" is as far as we can go. Collect (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't really get the meaning of citation at all, do you? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, obsess about just how much you can take one tabloid article out of context some more so you can justify ignoring the existence of Holt's biography, Zara Holt's memoirs, the entire coverage of the Sydney Morning Herald over many years and the Australian Dictionary of Biography. This is either trolling or on some bizarre ideological quest that has absolutely nothing to do with either facts or sources: there's no rational explanation for your desire to keep pretending every source I've referred to here does not exist and acting like we're talking into the abyss every time we bring them up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC PS 

message: Regardless of the discussion above, the text needs to be reworked. According to the Australian Dictionary of Biography:
:On the morning of Sunday 17 December 1967 he [Holt] collected a neighbour Marjorie Gillespie, her daughter and two young men, and together they watched the lone English yachtsman (Sir) Alec Rose sail through the Heads. The party then went to Cheviot Beach where Holt changed into his swimming trunks, said that he knew the beach like the back of his hand, and, soon after midday, entered what everyone later agreed was a fierce and high surf.
The Smithsonian article agrees, identifying the young men as the daughter, Vyner's boyfriend, Martin Simpson, and Alan Stewart. However, this article identifies Holt's companions as "Christopher Anderson, Jan Lee, and George Illson and his two bodyguards", mysteriously saying that Marjorie Gillespie was "also on the beach".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. That should be an uncontroversial fix. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  The incident is trivia unless one wishes to give an implication that the people were in some way involved in the disappearance.  Such a deliberate implication in Wikipedia's voice would need much stronger sourcing than has been given.  And since we have Gillespie's own words stating that the affair was not 'intimate' , we would be grossly in violation of Wikipedia policies to imply otherwise.  Guy has this one right. Collect (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And now you're not reading this article. The article already mentions all the people on the beach with Holt, and has completely uncontroversially for eight years; it just weirdly tacks Gillespie on the end in a way that makes no sense. You're just reflexively both opposing anything Jack mentions, and refusing to read absolutely anything referred to by anyone who disagrees with you. Like, this is not a change to the facts of the article - it's a grammatical change, and you're still fighting him because you couldn't be bothered reading the article you're supposed to be concerned about. This is ridiculous. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:AGF and note that my positions here have been solidly grounded in Wikipedia policy.  Attacking me for following the policies set forth in Wikipedia is not actually going to impress anyone at all. Collect (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be trolling. Happy to continue the conversation if you at any point feel like reading what either of us said rather than reflexively stirring shit for shits and giggles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Having thought about it, and checked Frame, I've come to the conclusion that the reference to "Christopher Anderson, Jan Lee, and George Illson and his two bodyguards" is a long-standing hoax. I have amended the text accordingly. I have also made other corrections to the text (though it could do with some more work). For example, according to Frame's detailed account, the others did not beg Holt not to go into the surf. I've also removed the references to his "friends". Marjorie was obviously his friend, but there's no indication that he'd even met the others before. (According to Frame, Stewart was a house guest of the Gillespies.) The question of who was on the beach does seem to be notable. If he did have bodyguards, they might have been able to rescue him. As it happened none of the others were strong swimmers. I also guess bodyguards would have been able to radio for help, whereas by Frame's account it appears it took about an hour for police to be contacted. Also, it has been suggested that Holt was trying to impress his "mates". In fact, there was no one on the beach who would normally be described like that.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It has definitely been suggested that Holt at least may have been trying to impress Gillespie (see the Edward St John quote in Frame), but otherwise that looks like a really good catch. Checking the relevant bits of my copy of Frame also makes me come to the same conclusion. Ugh, what a mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has been suggested that he was trying to impress Marjorie Gillespie, which again reinforces the importance of clarifying who was on the beach. I said that this was Wikipedia at its worst, but I didn't realise how bad it was. But at least we have now corrected something that was in the text for 8 years, and bizarrely unnoticed in all that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Yes, unfortunately. As I said, while removing the hoax, I casually noticed a few more errors about his disappearance. To give another example, the text said that within a "short time" a large rescue operation was launched. Well, as far as I can see from Frame, no rescue attempt at all occurred till more than an hour after. If someone is drowning, that's far too late. Maybe this inaccuracy is concentrated around the disappearance, which is Holt's most famous moment, but I would treat the whole article with scepticism.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, me too. There needs to be a stronger tag than the refimprove one for "article is badly sourced and questionable" but nothing in Twinkle stands out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once more onto the beach 

message: was clear -- the result is that the RfC determined that we can not call Gillespie Holt's "lover" as a statement of fact.  We can not thumb our noses at the close by  Guy - if anyone demurs, they should use the normal processes for appeal.  
"reported lover" is making a statement of fact
"rumoured lover" states that the claim is a rumour, and is not a statement of fact.
Is there any reason for this belief that we should, after having an RfC, totally ignore the result as stated in its close by an uninvolved administrator? Collect (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "reported" means what you think it means. As far as I can see, it means that it has been reported, which is clearly true. The closing statement by Guy did not use the term "rumoured", and I haven't seen any evidence of "rumours" about the relationship. That suggests there was some kind of scandal, but I haven't seen any reference to anything like that. In any case, that RfC seems a bit outdated as it was based around text subject to a long-running hoax. But I don't think anyone is going to stop you from changing "reported" to "rumoured".--Jack Upland (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As for "reported", what Jack said. I think there is sufficient argument about the matter that we should not refer to their relationship as such as a statement of fact, but "reported" does not do that. It is abundantly obvious that it has been reported as such in many reliable sources. It is less clear what WP:RS a suggestion that "rumoured" best describes this comes from. The details of Guy's close are made murky by the fact he openly based his rationale on an understanding of fact that is objectively untrue: "even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here". (There is no way you could come to that conclusion unless you take the one time she gave a vague answer under press questioning way out of context to the many, many times over the years she gave very direct answers in mainstream, reliable sources.) We should absolutely, as Guy says, "use attribution and to take care not to exceed what is stated by the sources"; we should just do it on what his biography and his wife's memoirs and other similarly-reliable sources have to say rather than what Guy misread in a two-minute skim of the talk page. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  "reported lover" is making a statement about reports, which are well sourced from multiple notable citations. In no way, shape or form does it make a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. But hey, none of this is new, as I have merely restated what this discussion - along with its myriad predecessors - has already established as consensus. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 05:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

text: I've just noticed that the Australian Dictionary of Biography (hardly a tabloid source) describes her as Holt's lover (but at the end of the article). Also, this article mentions extramarital affairs under "Early life".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the Australian Dictionary of Biography is not a reliable source, according to Collect. At what point do we stop assuming any kind of good faith here? If he's going to revert-war and refuse to engage with any kind of source whatsoever besides that one tabloid article that he's obsessed with, then he needs to be blocked for trolling. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

text: For anyone who is interested, some editors seem to think that attacking others is a good idea.  The RfC close is above - and you seem to think that by attacking me that you become "right".  BS at best, and a gross abuse of the Wikipedia Terms of Use for sure.    Collect (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If, at any point, you feel like discussing what reliable sources have to say about this subject, starting with Holt's biographer and Holt's wife, then going through mainstream press coverage over many years, feel free. If that's not your thing and you'd prefer to utterly ignore anything ever written about it in reliable sources and engage in the behaviour that got you topic banned the first time, then it's not an attack - it's just the reality and it demonstrates that the problem was not limited to the US. The choice is yours, and the horse hasn't bolted on you actually deciding to participate in this discussion in good faith and acknowledge the reliable sources that exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: An attack is aimed at the editor. We are discussing your editing patterns, specifically how those patterns earned you a topic ban. Your part in endlessly continuing the discussions on this talk page and wherever else you felt like WP:CANVASSING to get your way - indicates that seeking a broader topic ban may be necessary for all of us to continue with our lives, rather than indulge the apparently obsessive need to prevail at all cost. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RfC close above 

message: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines is clear. 
: Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.
Clear?  Collect (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: , you already took this to AN/I, unsuccessfully. What you keep removing (in complete violation of WP:TPO) is not an attack. I advise you to drop it. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 02:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feed the troll, you know he's enjoying the attention. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Section titles are not effing "comments" they are an explicit attack.   Period.  Collect (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  read the effing  guidelines please!!!!!  

message: Just flagging that I might not be able to finish supplying Frame citations for the article as I had hoped. The tide of events has overtaken me... May other editors strive to finish the job...--Jack Upland (talk) 11:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed this. I've met Tom Frame once or twice. His work as a naval historian is very impressive, and in other matters he looks beyond the superficial and the trite. when he says something, it is something worth listening to. Holt is an important figure in Australian history, perhaps not so much for the things he did, but for the promise of changes from the Menzies era. If Holt had not drowned at Portsea, I think he would have done many of the things that Whitlam did some years later. What Frame says of Holt is well worth noting here. --Pete (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. We just found a long-running hoax in the account of Holt's disappearance, so I was attempting to provide citations for the whole article. But I seem to have run out of time. If you wanted to pick a section that is lacking in citations, this would be greatly appreciated...--Jack Upland (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flagging that I'm flagging 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold Holt. 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/20140303212301/http://www.filmaust.com.au/pmismissing/ to http://www.filmaust.com.au/pmismissing/
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) 10:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Harold Holt. 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/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212121321/http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx to http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2012/Economic%20Roundup%20Issue%201/Downloads/05%20Hawkins%20Harold%20Holt.ashx
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) 15:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harold Holt. 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/20120130081144/http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/explore-stonnington/sport-and-recreation/swim/ to http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/explore-stonnington/sport-and-recreation/swim/
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) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've seen a documentary produced by a Australian agency, ASIO, I think it was, in which the KIDNAPPING, of Holt, was portrayed in a very different light, so while in other places, there might not be mentions of what was uncovered in the processes in/before that documentary, whatever it was called,.. the name escapes me... for me, the RE-APPEARANCE, of him in a eastern united states state, with a then "for the cameras" happy family shot & explination, with a suddenly happy wife, when in Australian papers and in a press release on the radio?tv?  she had made an appeal, was distressed, etc,.. didn't KNOW, where he was,..
was then all of a sudden seemingly forgotten about / didn't happen, and we were up in arms over here, about the obviousness of the  'miraculous' re-appearance and discrepancies of especially her, 'memory'.
Utter rubbish, either way, whether only claim, or not, but when the 'explination' was given, for diplomatic purposes,
"we had no doubt at the time".
( one of the interviewed in the documentary )
sorry I can't remember the name.
REW
Vurrath (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Utter rubbish.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE-appearance in a eastern American state 'on holiday' ?