Talk:Robert Hughes (critic)

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Portal	Robert Hughes (critic) 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

COMPERE: And what is the outline then of the prosecution's case?

DAVID WEBER: The outline is that Mr Hughes was on the wrong side of the road, thus driving dangerously causing grievous bodily harm to Mr Kelly and Mr Bennett, who were the most seriously injured in the other car. He was on the wrong side of the road and the other car had slowed down as Mr Hughes had not slowed down.

It was night, the conditions were dry in that there was no moisture on the road, but Mr Hughes was on the wrong side of the road and this is what caused the accident. That's what the prosecution is saying. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s124527.htm

JANA WENDT: Hughes came face to face with oblivion. Driving in the other direction, three young men saw Hughes' car heading straight for them on the wrong side of the road. They say they flashed their headlights and hit the horn, but it was too late. http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1445.asp

Hughes was deeply unimpressed by the reaction to his accident. He later told The New York Times they could tow Australia "out to sea and sink it". Not only that, he found the Prime Minister an "ignoramus" and judged there was a conspiracy among "malignant little newspaper hacks". He also maintained that "Ozpress" hated expatriate writers, and "might as well be Serbians".

The criminal charges were not the end of the affair. Mr Cock and his deputy, Lloyd Rayney, also sued Mr Hughes for defamation in December 2000 for remarks he made about them after he was acquitted in Broome. Among their concerns was a remark allegedly made about Mr Rayney, whom Mr Hughes described as "an Indian gentleman". Hughes denied reports he called him a "a curry muncher". http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/14/1050172542343.html

[edit] Robert Hughes no longer Australian

Robert Hughes is no longer Australian. It seems that in 2003 he relinquished his AO and Australian passport, and became a US citizen.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103267044.html

Nationality or culture is more than a matter of choice/citizenship. And there is an Australian culture which has nothing to do with citzenship. Germaine Greer and Jill Ker Conway are hardly ever in Australia. Rupert Murdoch is a U.S. citizen. I'm sure many people would argue that there is much about Hughes that remains Australian, including his decision to live overseas and become a U.S. citizen. :-) Grant65 | Talk 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact Hughes denied the report completely:

ROBERT HUGHES: Somebody wrote this extraordinary piece in the Herald the other day, published in the Herald, saying, "Now it can be revealed that Robert Hughes is no longer a citizen of Australia. He has turned in his passport, he has returned his Order of Australia, he has done this, that". This was total and complete fabrication.

JANA WENDT: You have not turned in your passport?

ROBERT HUGHES: I have not turned in my passport, I still travel on it. I have not abandoned my Australian citizenship and, certainly, although I don't normally wear that little gold button that goes with the AO, mainly because everybody in America thinks it's just a lost earring. I mean, I don't know where they get this.

JANA WENDT: All right, so you haven't done it – how do you now feel about Australia?

ROBERT HUGHES: I feel nothing but love for Australia and 90 per cent of Australians. I feel nothing but contempt for the people who went after me as they did.

Elitism 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If he became a U.S. citizen on or after 4 April 2002 he would not have lost his Australian citizenship automatically. In order to cease being Australian he would have needed to formally renounce his Australian citizenship under Australian law. Handing back an Australian passport in itself would not cause loss of citizenship. JAJ 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large scale deletion of material

I am reverting the changes by Adam Carr and/or PDH, until there has been discussion of the deletion of a large amount of material from the article, including (e.g.) Hughes' current place of residence, mention of the defamation proceedings against him, the charge of racism, etc. I would like a point-by-point explanation of the deletions.

Please bear in mind that one person's "gossip and trivia" is another person's "vital details". Thanks, Grant | Talk 08:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Many of those things need cites, which they don't have; which means that they can be removed per WP:CITE and BLP. In addition the previous version of the text was not written in an encyclopedic tone. We are writing an encyclopedia here after all.--Peta 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the reference his current place of residence, I moved it. The rest was unsourced gossip. Adam 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I now see the place of residence, crammed into a pragraph about his first wife.

As for the rest, I don't agree that it is is "gossip" and it isn't "unsourced" at all; look at the sources listed in the article's "References" section. They can be converted into in-text references if need be. As I was living here in Perth when the various court proceedings were going on, and followed them closely, I can assure you that the details in the article are substantiated. If anything, this article's description of what transpired is overly cautious. Grant | Talk 08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)