Talk:Joh Bjelke-Petersen

message: I just did a revert, Johlover is appearing to take on an attempt to force page ownership, and is going against consensus here. With that said, much of Johlovers edits have severe NPOV problems, he reinserts uncited edits, and is running an agenda hereVivaldi27 (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the weird features of Wikipedia is that it attracts everyone - right, left, centre, people with agendas, people with none, etc. The policy framework within which we operate is what stops the whole thing careening into the ditch, and that's part of the reason I'm here - I'm informed on the broad subject area (politics, and modern historical politics in Australia) although not the specific topic (Bjelke-Petersen and Queensland politics in 1968-1987). Being resident in a different State and having been 9 years old when he left office I have no personal stake in the issue, and I am an administrator with reasonable experience in the Australian project and handling disputes between third parties over content. Despite some fairly fundamental disagreements between the two main editors here on sourcing and content, I hope my presence and that of others I have been given reason to trust in the past, some of whom have commented here at times, will be enough to keep things going relatively smoothly. I wish I had more time to invest into actually working on it myself, I probably will come December once the uni semester is over and my job future is a bit more assured. In the meantime I'm simply watching out for excesses and attempting to fix them. Orderinchaos 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "Consensus can be wrong...and that's what's wrong with the Wikipedia." And who are you to say we should not follow WP:CONSENSUS? If you don't like it, tough. Timeshift (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Re: "History is informed and documented opinion, not just what the majority thinks" - that is pretty much the bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Consensus is meant to resolve conflict, not decide capital-T Truth. While we need to be careful to steer clear of WP:OR, I welcome any source-based approach to political topics - ultimately our article should fairly represent what the sources say on a topic. An interesting challenge - check out WP:WIAGA (particularly this older version of it) - that's the standard to which we should aspire with every article on Wikipedia, and there's no reason why it isn't achievable. Certainly from December onwards I'll be looking up whatever sources I can to try and help improve this thing, and if others are available I'm happy to review them. Orderinchaos 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: At the risk of stirring up a hornet's nest, I think it's about time this rather tangled article was rewritten, going back to neutral sources as a first port of call and then building up from there. I made some edits today and on the way through was a little concerned at the article's focus on almost random events. It's sort of symptomatic of the fact this article has historically been a battleground between his supporters and opponents and contains elements of both (the controversial former leader of my own turf, Brian Burke, has a similar problem.) What say others? Orderinchaos 00:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: This guy is a real character. We've even heard of him in Canada and the US. I heard he used to run a line of cheeses—does anyone know something on this? It would be good to put this in the article, if it's true. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheese

message: This subtle characteristic which I only just noticed throughout this article is interesting. I have not seen this used before. Is it warranted? If not, can it be removed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.162.34 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of the word "police" 

message: I have written a new version of this article out of concern over certain flaws, and propose to replace the current version with it. The new version can be read at User:BlackCab/sandbox, which is my incubator page.
The main differences are:
*I have expanded the lead section.
*The new version approaches the subject from a more disciplined chronological basis, charting Joh's rise to power, his political peak, his decline and the aftermath. 
*The addition of a section dealing specifically with Joh's personal character and attitudes on leadership, environment, industrial relations, indigenous Australians and other facets.
*Consequently I have dispensed with several subsections on the Joh for Canberra campaign, the Fitzgerald inquiry, his trial, and his relations with Cabinet and the media, etc; this material has been largely folded into the main chronological section or the Character and Attitudes section.
*I have removed a large number of dead links from the article and introduced a much greater reliance on the three major Bjelke-Petersen biographies (Lunn, Wear, Whitton) as well as other books and newspaper articles.
I welcome comments and suggestions, either here or at my talk page. I'd prefer you not edit my sandbox page, but rather discuss it. I am in no rush to upload my version to replace the current Bjelke-Petersen article, but I do believe there is a strong need to address and remedy its significant weaknesses. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed rewritten version looks good to me (and agreed with the assessment of its current state). One omission is the by-election to replace him where he supported the CEC candidate over the endorsed National, but this can be pretty much by-lined and linked to a (improved) Barambah state by-election, 1988 article. Orderinchaos 05:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no reference in a reliable source that states that Joh endorsed the CEC candidate. The Courier-Mail reported him on 15 March 1988 as urging voters to support the Liberals in the Groom federal by-election the week before the Barambah by-election (which I'll add to my article), but I can find no reference in the Courier-Mail or The Australian to Bjelke-Petersen endorsing any of the Barambah candidates. BlackCab (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewrite 

message: At this edit  an editor has changed the article from "Bjelke-Petersen immediately sought confidential legal advice on how to thwart the federal government's plan. He devised a strategy in which Gair's seat would be declared a casual vacancy ..." to "Bjelke-Petersen's colleagues in Canberra immediately devised a strategy in which Gair's seat would be declared a casual vacancy". According to Lunn (p.172) it was Bjelke-Petersen who came up with the concept and later sought help from Doug Anthony to keep Gair occupied. What's the source for the change? Rae Wear (p.181) also credits the Gair Affair to Bjelke-Petersen's cunning. BlackCab (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gair affair 

message: I have reverted the new material that was placed under the heading "Feeding the chooks". Wikipedia articles are based on reliable published sources rather than an editor's "experience in Joh's press gallery." The article has been reshaped into a broadly chronological order, so a section on Joh's dealings with the media now properly belong in the "Character and attitudes" section. BlackCab (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrogance and personal experience don't count here. Please read Wikipedia's content guideline at WP:RS before adding any further personal impressions. BlackCab (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

text: If you are the same person who commented earlier, please understand that we are not here to debate how much we know about the issue and what books you think I should read. The article was in a very shabby state, with no clear chronological thread and was just a random assortment of subjects. I have rewritten it to show the development of his career and his fall. His dealings with the media do probably warrant inclusion, but it does the article no good to insert another subject in the middle of the chronological thread, leaving a host of numbers in the article that do not mean anything because there is no longer any link to sources. I want the best possible article, and I presume you do too. My suggestion is to move the media material down into the "Character and attitudes" section and place proper sourcing there. Wikipedia depends on collaboration and co-operation, and it also relies on reliable sources as its measure for inclusion; without that it all becomes a jumble of opinion from warring editors. I'd vastly prefer we worked together to fix it, rather than just reverting. BlackCab (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feeding the chooks 

message: wasnt sir joh the treasurer and held other commissions? why doesnt it say those other offices in the box?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.215.25 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does mention the portfolios he held before becoming premier. I've had a quick look at the template used for that infobox and don't see that it allows that information to be included. I'll see what I can find and also whether other state premiers have that information listed. BlackCab (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: It is doable with the template. See e.g. Peter Beattie Orderinchaos 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: other posts

message: I notice some presidents of america have a section entitled this. For example, on the night of the 1987 federal election, liberal party president John Valder said Joh "Was like John Wayne who has fallen off his horse". There is a great image of Joh wearing a straw hat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.18.43 (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: User:BlackCab, regards to you
The webpage of the inventor Stephen Horvath is very reliable in that it reveals the approach to which Bjelke-Petersen would have responded.
The actual reliability is beside the point. What the link gave was what the Premier received himself as information.
I was quite aware of the wiki technicality.
thanks  --Laurencebeck (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia must rely on secondary sources for its information, not primary sources. It is never clear whether an individual's website is accurate or not, hence the reliance on reliable secondary sources -- those with a reputation for fact-checking -- and the general prohibition against self-published sources. Please read WP:USINGSPS and WP:RS for further information. BlackCab (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  — hydrogen-powered car — link to newspaper story is now placed in main article in section 9.7 Personal associations. --Laurencebeck (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   inventor Stephen Horvath 

message: The statement that "His uncompromising conservatism (including his role in the downfall of the Whitlam federal government),..." reads oddly to me. Conservatism is surely not a reason for notability. And his role (if any) in the fall of Whitlam is not connected to his "uncompromising conservatism". These are different concepts and factors. Incidentally, I do not think Bjelke-Petersen can be said to have been uncompromisingly conservative. He supported business development, and was in favour of legal casinos, both liberal viewpoints.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That wording was introduced back in early 2006. Bjelke-Petersen was certainly notable for his moral conservatism, with his acceptance of a casino being the obvious jarring exception. In an era of increasing liberalism, Joh stood out as a bulwark against the erosion of old-school morality and came to be regarded as nationally as a subject of ridicule for that reason. His involvement in Whitlam's downfall came through his unrelenting sense of political conservatism, which involved an obsessive anti-socialist outlook. I think there's a reasonable connection, but if you have a suggestion for improved wording, you're welcome to suggest it. BlackCab (TALK) 07:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is conservatism a reason for notability? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Joh Bjelke-Petersen. 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/20071120041514/http://www.news.com.au:80/couriermail/extras/federation/Timelines/CMFedTimelineWideBayAddJoh.htm to http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/extras/federation/Timelines/CMFedTimelineWideBayAddJoh.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071021042912/http://abc.net.au:80/news/items/200505/1358840.htm?queensland to http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200505/1358840.htm?queensland
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 01:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I would just like to state that someone obviously never told the "Friends of Joh" that innocent people do not spend their last day in power locked in their office destroying evidence. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Friends of Joh" who saved Joh from jail 

message: It is a surprise to many that the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry was not a Royal Commission, but was hurriedly established by Bill Gunn (acting Premier) pursuant to Orders in Council.  The inquiry nearly died in its early days, starved of resources and information.  It was only because Gunn had a degree of personal integrity, and Paul Clausen (Attorney general) had a well honed political instinct for the main chance that got the inquiry off the ground. Gunn kept his word to Tony Fitzgerald to protect the inquiry long enough for it to get too much momentum for Joh to strangle it.  The Fitzgerald Commission report acknowledges this in the introductory section titled "political background".  The distinction between the two types of enquiry is a small but important one - and the fact that it was not a fully fledged RC is important if you want to understand how touch and go it was.  There had been prior abortive inquiries into police corruption in Qld, and until the Fitzgerald process was well under way Joh clearly thought that he could ride it out again. 
I have not put this in, but suggest only that the reference to the Fitzgerald Inquiry as a Royal Commission be corrected when someone is next visiting the area.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.121.150.195 (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Fitzgerald Inquiry - not a Royal Commission 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joh Bjelke-Petersen. 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://archive.is/20120718040059/http://www.australian-politics-books.com/ccp0-prodshow/dont-you-worry-about-that-joh-bjelke-petersen.html to http://www.australian-politics-books.com/ccp0-prodshow/dont-you-worry-about-that-joh-bjelke-petersen.html
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) 21:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As someone who lived under Bjelke-Petersen's vicious regime, I consider this article to be unbalanced. Anyone who sees Bjelke-Petersen as conservative is equating violent authoritarianism with conservatism. Bjelke-Petersen was an enemy of democracy. He stayed in power for decades with under 20% of the popular vote through gerrymandering. He ran a police state which violently suppressed normal forms of democratic protest. During the 1970s, Queensland police broke the law with impunity. People with no history of criminal activity were persecuted; files kept by Special Branch on anyone involved in politics, homes raided regularly, young men taken away by police and beaten unconscious. Aboriginal people frequently died in police custody, and were routinely imprisoned on trumped up charges. This article from Brisbane's daily newspaper The Courier-Mail (1 December 2017) is a far more accurate depiction of the way he is seen today. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/joh-bjelkepetersen-left-a-mixed-legacy-that-30-years-on-from-his-resignation-still-divides/news-story/f33ad31585122abbce7adec49e69b112 2A02:C7D:5049:D500:3155:2CE0:513D:C5A1 (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bjelke-Petersen was neither conservative nor democratic

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: hi, I'm not too good at writing citations but wanted to add some information under Bjelke-Petersen's section about Aboriginal people. could someone please add these for me?
* PDF from the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland giving a brief human rights history on Aboriginal people in Queensland, published 2017 but last updated in July 2018. Page 49 has the information about Koowarta and Oyala Thumotang I want to cite.
* 22/5/2012 media statement from the Newman government about land handback of  Mungkan Kandju National Park
* History page of the official Oyala Thumotang National Park website which speaks briefly about Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, Bjelke-Petersen's attempts to block Wik acquisition, and recent handback of the land, last updated 22/5/19 and last reviewed 28/9/21
Thank you for reading this and adding the cites for me if you do.
-- 2403:5807:7862:0:8DE5:DE49:4B5A:72B5 (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the citations. Can you please check I have added them in the right place. Wikimedia Australia provides free training (both face-to-face or online via Zoom, as appropriate) for people (individually or in groups) wishing to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia. Please get in touch at contact@wikimedia.org.au if you would like to learn. We need more people interested in contributing well-cited material. Kerry (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing request re: Aboriginal people and Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen 

message: Page is broken. FYI the right window is oversized and not displaying correctly. 
Please fix. 101.179.83.187 (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! Thanks for reporting the problem! Kerry (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, this problem is still extant on a lot of Australian politician articles. The "office" parameter really doesn't like line breaks and certain other templates. Just keep a lookout on other articles. Steelkamp (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do. Kerry (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is broken. FYI the right window is oversized and not displaying correctly.