Talk:Edmund Barton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edmund Barton has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Edmund Barton was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 9, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed

	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]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Portal	Edmund Barton is within the scope of 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 law.
	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.

---

that's ridiculous. the fact he was a mason as sourced here [1] should be known widely in his bio. to call it "link-spam" is almost criminal. Rcm 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's rather a bit of hyperbole. You were systematically adding the same text to successive pages in often irrelevant areas with an external link. I took this to be spam. Please integrate the reference with the article, rather than just tacking it on the end.--cj | talk 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Racist? 2 Cabinet? 3 White Australia Policy 4 Peer Review/GA nomination 5 GA nomination 6 Family 7 Recent edits to lead of article

[edit] Racist?

Would Barton be considered a racist in todays terms? It seems he made quite a number of racist or "racialistic" speaches, namely the need to " secure the future of our fair country against the tide of inferior and unequal asians arriving from the north".AQjosh 01:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Off course he's a racist, calling another race inferior automatically qualify him as suchCanpark 14:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source for that quote. Of course Barton supported White Australia, as did virtually everyone in Australia at that time, but that language seems rather more crude than I would expect from Barton. Plus there was no "tide of asians arriving from the north" in 1901. All the colonies had banned Asian immigration years before. The immediate target of the 1901 legislation was the Kanakas in Queensland, not the Chinese. Adam 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's a source, the Parliament Education Office site reproducing the Hansard. The quote is accurate. Contrast with Deakin who argues against Asian immigration on a protectionist basis. Barton does however take a narrower line than Watson and others who were pushing for a complete ban on all "coloured" migrants. --bainer (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the Protectionists, Free Trade Party, and the Labour Party all supported a white australia as was the social norm at the time. Timeshift 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious it was a social norm at the time, for the elected prime minister to be racist evinces that. However, it doesn't change it from being racist. There are forms of racism that are social norms now. You can qualify it by mentioning that racism was the norm at the time, if that makes it sound less pejorative to you. See the wikipedia article Racism for discussion of its meanings. --- and you will know know me by the trail of dead. 00:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree that it's still racism. I never said it wasn't. Just pointing out virtually every single person you would have known if you lived back then were extreme racists by today's standards. Timeshift 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cabinet?

'Bold textwho was in sir edmund barton's cabinet???

As far as I can recall, his cabinet consisted mostly of the former Premiers (except the Tasmanian Premier) plus O'Connor and Deakin.Doktor Waterhouse 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Australia Policy

"This was the price of the Labor Party's support for the government." The reason I deleted the sentence is that it implies (depending which way you read it) that either the ALP or Barton didn't want WAP but accepted it against their wishes in return for forming government. Since they both wanted WAP, there was no "price" to either of them. That is why I think the sentence should be deleted. Peter Ballard 07:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A reference has now been added[2] but all that says is that Barton enacted WAP, not that ALP demanded it, nor that Barton didn't want it. Peter Ballard 07:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review/GA nomination

Comments for Peer Review/GA nom welcome. Timeshift 09:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

It's clear that a lot of work has gone into this article, but the result is rather uneven, in that there is too much about the "Campaign for federation" and not enough about Barton's "Judicial career".

I found that the Campaign for federation section had so much fine detail that it became like a story, with this happening then that, and did not read like an encyclopedia article at all. I suggest that this section be cut back a lot. On the other hand the Judicial career section is very brief, and it would be good to see this expanded, giving coverage to some important cases that Barton dealt with etc. These revisions would help to better balance the article.

I'm putting this article on hold as it is close to GA status. However, the issues noted above must be dealt with before GA status can be awarded. I hope this can be addressed within the seven days allowed by on hold, and wish you all the best with your editing. -- Johnfos 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the information John. I'll leave this one open to the community. Timeshift 08:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Timeshift. Seven days have passed and I have to let you know that your GA nomination has not been successful. I hope the article can be improved through peer review and that you may consider re-submitting it for GA later. regards, Johnfos 06:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Family

How come it doesnt have the death dates of some of Bartons children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.66.104 (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits to lead of article

As the first Prime Minister of Australia, Barton has become something of a national icon, and is remembered for his statement that "For the first time, we have a nation for a continent, and a continent for a nation."

Today, Australians are much less inclined to remember his other well known statement at the time, "I do not think that the doctrine of the equality of man was really ever intended to include racial equality."

The second paragraph is POV/OR especially for the lead so I removed it, but somehow the remover thinks that if the second sentence can't be there, then the first sentence can't be either. Why? It's now a very empty lead and there is nothing wrong with the first sentence. I have no qualms placing the second sentence further down. Timeshift (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)