Talk:Gough Whitlam/Archive 2

message: Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Looking at my first reference: Paul Kelly:  November 1975, (Allen & Unwin 1995) p108 states "Given Bjelke-Petersen's animosity towards the Whitlam Government it is very doubtful that he would have found any of the three ALP nominees satisfactory, even if Labor had submitted a list." He also comments that despite this Labor should have submitted a list and taken the high moral ground. 
I have plenty of other references about the dismissal, which I will gladly search, but as you said no commentator believes Joh would have rejected the entiree list, I feel that one exception is enough.
Really, this is a case where you had to be there. The passions of the time mean any commentary is going to be tainted. I am glad to admit I was a Whitlam supporter and as soon as Joh said he would not guarantee supporting the ALP candidate we assumed he had someone like Field up his sleeve.  Gough's description of him as a "bible bashing bastard" summed up how we felt - there was no way this guy was gouing to follow the conventions . Porturology 30/5/5
Whack in four tildes in a row or click the "signature" button above the edit box. That'll do the trick. OK, I stand corrected on Kelly. He's about as good a commentator as we've got. Good on you! A quick cite of an objective source is all anyone should need. However, on that point, it's been thirty years, Kelly was watching politics at that time and has been ever since, and yet you say that "any commentary is going to be tainted." I don't think Kelly is tainted. Pete 00:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for references 

message: The previous wording was highly POV, giving the impression that Whitlam was the victim of a Coalition plot and betrayed by the media during the campaign. While this is mostly true, it is also true that Whitlam set up the conditions for his own downfall with a string of ministerial failures and resignations. A year after winning the 1974 double dissolution election, the Bass by-election in June 1975 was a savage defeat for the ALP. That wasn't the fault of a snubbed Sir John Kerr, a traitorous media, or a Machiavellian Malcolm Fraser.
On the matter of advice, there is a clear distinction between advice given to the Governor-General in the execution of his constitutional powers, which are generally exercised only on ministerial advice (though the reserve powers remain free of the need to act on advice) and advice on other matters, such as seeking expert legal opinion on constitutional matters. Kerr notes in his autobiography that he was not provided by the government with any satisfactory advice and that he felt the need to consult in order to determine a course of action. Consulting with Barwick is seen by some as yet another spadeful in the plot to bury Whitlam, but as Paul Kelly makes clear, Kerr was more interested in covering his own bum than looking out for Whitlam, and wasn't dancing to anybody's tune but his own. Pete 11:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Dismissal