Talk:Alexander Downer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Portal	Alexander Downer is maintained by 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is supported by WikiProject North East England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to North East England on Wikipedia. For further information or to participate, you can visit the Project page.	North East England Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Performance 2 Can this be used? 3 East Timor Report 4 Deleted a sentence 5 NPOV 6 OAFs? 7 Allegations of Bias 8 Vandal 9 Chevening allegations

[edit] Performance

Downer judged ineffective in handling Indonesia by who?

---

I think that some of the comments about Downer have been written in quite a harsh way.

Downer also played a role in the subsequent negotiation of the Pacific Solution in which Australia held refugees off-shore in foreign jurisdictions in an attempt to deny them entry into Australia.

Probably should be written like this: Alexander Downer also played a role in the subsequent negotiation of the Pacific Solution in which Australia held refugees off-shore in foreign jurisdictions which (some arguee) is an attempt to deny refugess direct entry into Australia (though some have been admitted into Australia).

& He has been a firm supporter of the legality of the war in Iraq and he vociferously defended the claim that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq to justify the 2003 invasion of that country, long after this claim was abandoned by many others [1] [2] [3]

He was and continues to be a firm supporter of the legality of the Iraq War (which is based on te UN resolutions that George Bush used a pretext for going to war) and he also defended the claim that WMD would be found in Iraq eve though a majority opinon indicated that there was a very slim chance any WMD would be found.

It seems sad that the article simply shows his 'mistakes' and really adds nothing of any success he has had. Downer is also known for his very dogged defense of Austrlian Foreign Policy.

---

I think he's done a good job in dealing with them, unlike Crean who can't even get his appointments honoured.

I don't respond to anonymous comments. Adam 04:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

oh, the irony.... From Anon.

Can you help us out on Political families of the world? I don't know which of you wrote that Alexander Downer is related to Bob Carr (premier of NSW), but I quoted from this article as fact on the Political families of the world page of Wikipedia, and have now been challenged to provide a source for the claim. Can somebody do this for me? Thanks! Davidcannon 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have to doubt this very much - since it's an anon edit, I'm going to remove the point from the page until someone challenges me otherwise. The fact that they're on opposing parties makes me think this is someone taking the mickey on this... Dysprosia 10:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I seriously question the statement about a majority of Australians supporting the Howard Government's policy of close alliance with the US. This is the very sort of issue that politicians and people generally argue endlessly about, each side producing their own evidence and counter-arguments. That makes it, in my book, intrinsically arguable and therefore, by definition, not NPOV. Comments? JackofOz 08:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meh. I left that in when I took out some more obviously POV material on a majority of Australians supporting the Iraq war before, because I thought that was fairly widely agreed on. From what I can remember, the polls have shown a majority in favor, and both main political parties support it rather strongly (which I doubt very much Labor would do if that position had much support). Still, if you want to take it out, I wouldn't object - it's not exactly relevant to this article. Ambivalenthysteria 12:19, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Labor founded the US alliance and has always supported it, even when dissenting from the US over issues like Vietnam and Iraq. As far as I know opinion polls have always shown majority support for the alliance in principle, but opinion obviously fluctuates on specific issues like Iraq. Even so I think the Iraq war had majority support before and during the war. I suspect that support has now retrospectively evaporated as a result of the WMD debacle and general contempt for Bush. I agree that the point is not really relevant to this article. Adam 01:19, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Where did the picture for this come from, and is it possible to get images of other pollies from there? Ambivalenthysteria 00:54, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember where I got that pic from. You can get free non-copyright photos of all current federal MPs and senators at the Parliament of Australia website. Adam 03:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Julia Gillard and Aden Ridgeway will be pictureless no more. Ambivalenthysteria 06:23, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Anyone else think that the link offered at the end of the article is a "satire" site rather than a true "fan-site"? Aggelophoros 00:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Should his electorate (Division of Mayo) be added somewhere? Alphax (t) (c) (e) 09:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

---

Did he work on his accent with professionals, trying to make him sound more "Australian" ? Does his Cultivated Australian English come from his education and attendance at Oxford?

A nicely balanced and informative article. I do query whether the statement that he supports the legality of the Iraq war is quite accurate - his support isn't restricted to the war's legality.

This probably can't be worked in, which is a pity, but DFAT and Downer don't have a lot of input into foreign policy these days - the important decisions are handled in the PM's office, and Downer and DFAT are left to work out the details. This, unfortunately, comes from what I believe is called "original research". PiCo 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it part of Wikipedia's policy that people who actually know about things are not allowed to say what they know, while every ignorant crackpot in the world is free to say whatever they like. Adam 06:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can this be used?

Some quotes about Downer:

• Hugh White, the head of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, describes Downer as "genuinely now very knowledgeable about the world and diplomatic affairs", an effective diplomat whose tendency to "say things a bit offbeat" is regarded by peers as endearing, and a foreign minister whose judgement, through sheer experience, is sound, though he still has lapses.

from http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Downers-mark/2004/12/17/1102787274498.html

• From the same article, but this time the words of the journalist: "Downer is a realist and a pragmatist who sees the world in terms of power relativities and threats, and has never had a high regard for international law or institutions. He will not go down in history as a great policy innovator - unlike Gareth Evans or Percy Spender (the latter negotiated the ANZUS Treaty) - but he has had some foreign policy successes. His departmental colleagues, with whom he has a good relationship, say Downer doesn't get enough credit for his commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, or for the attention now given to consular matters and the protection of Australian travellers overseas."

PiCo 08:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think these are fair comment by well-informed people and can be used. Downer is no genius, and still harms himself with outbursts of childish behaviour in the House (partly because he and Rudd clearly loathe each other), but by sheer persistence he has got on top of the job. Adam 13:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] East Timor Report

Perhaps this news story could be included in the statement about East Timor? It might add an important opposing view of Downers support of East Timors freedom, and I quote "A report to the United Nations has found Australia actively lobbied to delay East Timor's independence ballot in 1999 and prevent its separation from Indonesia" and "Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer made it clear it would be preferable if Timor remained legally part of Indonesia and actively lobbied the government in Jakarta to delay the independence vote..." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1560743.htm -Grant 02/02/2006

[edit] Deleted a sentence

I deleted this sentence: He was greatly helped by the changed international situation after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, which has been attributed to a majority of Australians supporting the Howard Government's policy of close alliance with the US. Is the author really sure this is what he/she meant to say - that that the changed international situation after 9/11 was due to a majority of the Oz population supporting the Oz alliance with the US?

Anyway, the paragraph as a whole misses the really big change in Oz foreign policy since Howard came to power - the abandoment of the self-reliant Australo-centric policy of Aust as a good international citizen as pushed by Keating/Evans and its replacement with the Howard/Downer policy of Aust as a member of the US alliance, integrating both foreign policy and defence posture into US goals. The subject that launched a thousand PhDs, I'm sure. PiCo 11:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(PS - is there an article on Richard Butler? Should there be? Dare I tell all I know? :). PiCo 11:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This entire paragraph would seem to be dedicated to praising Alexander Downer.

"Hugh White, the head of the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, describes Downer as "genuinely now very knowledgeable about the world and diplomatic affairs", an effective diplomat whose tendency to "say things a bit offbeat" is regarded by peers as endearing, and a foreign minister whose judgement, through sheer experience, is sound, though he still has lapses. He has been described as "a realist and a pragmatist," a man who "will not go down in history as a great policy innovator" but who "has had some foreign policy successes" and who has worked hard in areas such as nuclear non-proliferation and at raising the attention given by his Department to comparatively neglected areas such as consular matters and the protection of Australian travellers overseas.[1]"

Although it is not 100% positive, it certainly seems to be tilted strongly in his favour. Perhaps it should either be removed, or counter balanced with a more critical quote from a reputable source.

-Anonymous user, 13:47 4 March 2006 (Adelaide, Australia time)

[edit] OAFs?

If you keep in the mention of "Old Adelaide Families", then you need to keep the acronym OAFs. The whole point is that it spells the word "oaf". So either keep both or delete both. I've decided to delete it, because (a) In 30+ years in Adelaide I've never heard the expression, and (b) the article already has other mentions of his privleged background. Rocksong 11:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You've not heard it before? It has limited currency given the decline of the Establishment, but exist it does. The ABC's Australian Word Map lists it as an Adelaide regionalism. That said, I see no especial reason to note it.--cj | talk 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Bias

This article has been flagged by news.com.au along with others, Liberals hit back at Wikipedia 'dirt' file as possibly biased. Just thought I'd give a heads up. Iorek85 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're biased, and horribly so, but Adam's not at fault (as far as I can tell). They'll remain biased so long as those who contribute to political articles come from a leftist background. I've noticed this problem for a long time. michael ^talk 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How is this article biased? Rebecca 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A concentration on flaws rather than progress and his work as a whole. There's a whole paragraph dedicated to attacking him: "the idiot son of the aristocracy". This type of bias isn't unique to Downer. michael ^talk 05:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A good article should cover both, and while it could do with a bit more on his successes, it certainly isn't bad. The "idiot son of the aristocracy" stuff was a highly successful tactic against used him when he was Opposition Leader, which is why it warrants at least some discussion here. You seem to be pushing for the removal of anything that could even remotely reflect negatively on conservative figures of late, leading to articles that end up like glorified resumes. Rebecca 06:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rude accusation. I won't bother engaging in argument against you, doing so is folly. There is a huge bias problem with so many Australian political articles but I am not in a position to take on the resident politics oligarchy. michael ^talk 06:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem. Mentioning of something that reflects badly on a conservative politician, even if accurate, verifiable and notable, as with the aristocracy issue here, is deemed "huge bias". When I write articles, everything relevant and notable I can find goes in the article, regardless of whether it could be argued to reflect positively or negatively on the person and regardless of my personal feelings for them. As such, anyone from overseas reading the article gets a comprehensive picture of the person's career. When anything negative about a person is expunged, however, you end up with an article that, frankly, isn't worth a pinch of sh*t to anyone who didn't already know about the subject. Rebecca 06:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think one way to remove bias from the article is to remove all assessments of his performance in the 2nd-last paragraph. Who says he "got off to a shaky start"? Who says he has "performed effectively"? Who says East Timor was "his most notable achievement"? I think it is sufficient to list his main challenges (clearly Indonesia and Iraq IMHO) and characteristics (strong USA links) of his ministership (is that a word?), and to note that Howard has left him there for 10+ years so to note that Howard thinks he has been effective. I don't think it is possible (or appropriate) for Wikipedia itself to try to evaluate his performance. Rocksong 10:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to evaluate his performance, but we can and should cite other people in doing so. Otherwise, we end up with a glorified resume. Really, this article could do with quite a lot of work (mainly because it is incomplete, rather than biased) - but attributing its current state to some sort of leftist cabal, as Michael did, was just downright rude. Rebecca 10:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend Bec, I just meant to bring up an issue - there was no intention to be "downright rude". There's no point keeping silence when something does concern me. If I'm wrong, so be it and no harm done. If I'm right, its good that I brought it up so it could be attended to. I'm no fool and I hope you realise I don't mean to rock the boat. Perhaps in time my concerns will be allieviated through article expansion / correction. michael ^talk 01:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "things that batter" paragraph isn't biased, it's a fact of history. It is also a genuine reflection of Downer's sheltered, private scool boy attitude towards venerable citizens. He lived up to his title of "idiot son" on that day.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.189.164.104 (talk • contribs) , who tried to sign as "mango north", 00:09, 31 January 2007 UTC.

[edit] Vandal

I think we need to block edits from 58.160.185.* Rocksong 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chevening allegations

I've just removed a second version of some allegations about Downer's daughter, per WP:BLP. Controversial claims like these have to be strongly supported by Reliable Sources. Blog posts are not reliable sources for such attacks, even if hosted at the SMH website. Moreover, the attack is based on an important factual error: the Chevening Scholarship does not require 1st or 2nd class honors.[1] Even Crikey got that detail right! Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also notability: the article should report what's important about Downer's career (according to decent sources), and not insert a paragraph every time he makes the news. If the issue continues to dog him, then it deserves an entry. If everyone except Crikey ignores it, then I'd suggest it doesn't. Rocksong 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the removed paragraphs, and agree they should have gone, but think a small paragraph simply noting some of the reporting in the media, with references included, would be appropriate. - Matthew238 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)