Talk:Malcolm Fraser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Malcolm Fraser, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
Malcolm Fraser 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-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
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Memphis 1986
I think the incident at the hotel in Memphis should be noted here in some form or another,
"Malcolm Fraser was a very strong politician but unfortunately he will be most remembered for losing his trousers in a Memphis, USA hotel" [1]
and heres a better source, from an official Australian govt. publication..
"the mysterious loss of his trousers during an overnight stay in Memphis Tennessee in 1986" [2] Astrokey44 15:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
This episode has become ecrusted with mythology, and is in any case of no intrinsic importance. I will add a sentence based on the account in the Ayres biography. Adam 15:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The sentence you supplied read as a merely burglery, whereas what drove the incident into folklore, and resulted in such national hilarity was the loss of trousers (and dignity in a politican who was viewed as pompous). The sentence supplied by Astrokey is better because it does this. I've provided a variation of it to add clarity.
[edit] As Prime Minister
The last sentence in the first paragraph of the section on Fraser's years as Prime Minister contains two clauses joined by a semicolon; the second reads, "as a result of the cuts, which affected many areas of the federal public service." I must ask: "as a results of the cuts," WHAT HAPPENED? 69.173.113.129 02:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Residence
He is categorised under "People of Melbourne" but his electorate and (I thought) home were in the Western District of Victoria. Can someone cite authority for his residence? Fat Red 21:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
He was born in Melbourne, but so far as I know he has never lived there (I don't know where he lives now). Adam 23:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
People with money usually have more than one residence, often several, and they often have trouble knowing where they live. The Frasers sold there property in the western district some ten years ago They have an apartment in South Yarra and a property in Redhills-which is the 'official' residence I guess? 128.250.99.142 03:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I know Fraser's mother had a flat (not an apartment, thank you) in South Yarra, so he has probably inherited that. Adam 03:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately time marches on - and so do Americanisms :( PMA 04:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TANSTAAFL
Where did this come from? The quote doesn't match the acronym, it's not original, and if he's remembered for a quote it's not this one! --Jumbo 21:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] on immigration
IMMIGRATION authorities warned the Fraser government in 1976 it was accepting too many Lebanese Muslim refugees without “the required qualities” for successful integration. --tickle me 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jewishness
I really hate these racial categories, but since the article says it I'd like to address it... The article says, "His mother, Una Fraser (nee Woolf), had a Jewish father, a fact which influenced his attitudes towards multiculturalism.". I suggest a rewrite in light of this 1994 interview at http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/fraser/interview10.html :
- Fraser: "I think I was so naive I didn't know why some of the kids were picking on others, and it's only later that I would have been conscious that the person being bullied or whatever was in fact a Jew. There weren't very many Jews at Melbourne Grammar."
- Interviewer: "Were you at all conscious of the fact that you had some Jewishness in your own background?"
- Fraser: "None at all. Never have been."
Rocksong 00:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fraser installed Mugabe?
The sentence "In 1979 Fraser played a leading role in the settlement which created an independent Zimbabwe and installed Robert Mugabe in power" (which I've since changed) is an example of the rewriting of history with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight. What installed Mugabe in power in 1980 was the voters of democratic Zimbabwe, which was applauded in the Commonwealth and most of the world for more than a decade, and several years later, by many whites in Zimbabwe. The suggestion that Fraser brought about a settlement which 'installed Mugabe' is wrong and ludicrous. As a result of the 1980 democratic settlement which Fraser helped bring about, by 1992 (12 years later) Zimbabwe was a great country. What has happened since has nothing to do with Fraser and everything to do with the fact that democracy is the worst political system ever invented (except, of course, for all the others). Rexparry sydney 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would be better to clarify that Fraser and his Nigerian counterpart were the ones that persuaded Margaret Thatcher to withhold recognition of the Zimbabwe Rhodesia government, therefore bringing about the Lancaster House talks, and a 'democratic' Zimbabwe. This is much more accurate. michael talk 09:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, why not put that in? Rexparry sydney 09:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2/3 majority myth
I remember years ago when the proposed republican model of having a President elected by a two thirds majority of both Houses of Parliament combined was discussed, the magnitude of Malcolm Fraser's 1975 victory was bought into context. It was mentioned that if Fraser had won one more seat in either House of Parliament, he would have had a 2/3 majority of both Houses of Parliament combined. If people had actually done their calculation they would know that, that is not correct. 2/3 of a number in percentage terms is 66.66666....7% or twice the remainder of the whole number. For example 2/3 of 9 is 6. The remainder of this sum is 3 and 3 multiplied by 2 is 6. Now Malcolm Fraser in 1975 won 126 of the 191 House and Senate seats combined. If he had won one more seat it would have been 127 and 127 out of 191 in percentage terms is 66.49%. The remaining seats from the 191 seats that were won by non-Coalition members would have been 64 instead of the actual 65. 64 multiplied by 2 is 128, one more than 127. Therefore Malcolm Fraser would have needed to have two more seats not one to have that 2/3 majority. I have to wonder why this mistake was ever made. --The Shadow Treasurer 07:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't remember that. What I do remember is Howard saying this (Hansard, 8-Jun-1995:[3] "Inaccurately, last night, the Prime Minister said that no party had enjoyed two-thirds control at a joint sitting since the end of World War II. In fact, in 1946 the Chifley Labor government would have had 69 per cent of the members and senators present at a potential joint sitting of the parliament." Rocksong 11:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. Which isn't to deny that you've remembered correctly. Rocksong 11:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dismissal cleanup
As previously mooted over several months on the John Kerr discussion page, we need to rationalise a group of articles dealing with the Australian Labor government's dismissal in 1975. The Malcolm Fraser article is the easiest one because of its relative brevity, but there is considerable duplication to be removed from the articles John Kerr, Gough Whitlam and Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, which will undoubtedly create controversy. However, someone has to make a start. Please, everyone, accept that this is an exercise in good faith and editorial balance, to make these articles better. Cheers -- Bjenks 17:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quality Rating
We should give it a B, if not a GA. Guy0307 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Learn the ropes young padawan. Andrew Fisher has been brought up to GA standard, and has such has been given GA status. This isn't a GA article :P Timeshift (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stolen Generations apology
On the day of the national apology to the Stolen Generations, after the event Malcolm Fraser was standing alongside Whitlam, Hawke and Keating giving comments to the media about their thoughts of the event. Fraser said that one thing he wishes he did during his Prime Ministership is to have apologised to the Stolen Generations. He said he wished someone had suggested it to him back then, and he would have done it. I think this is really worth including in the article. I haven't, because I don't have a reference. I saw Fraser say this on one of the commercial television news bulletins, not sure which one. If anyone can help locate a reference, it would be great to include this information. Thanks, Lester 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Backs it up, but is not a WP:RS. Timeshift (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a pity we don't have a text reference for this. Considering it was one of Fraser's regrets about his Prime Ministership, but the only sources are video and television which we can't cite. Lester 05:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a pity it's OR, but I saw him give a talk at a Young Liberal function when Mabo was in the news. One of the members of my branch asked him what he thought about the decision on terra nullius and he said it was an irrelevancy. He didn't seem interested in native title back then (early 90's). --Surturz (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's a pity we don't have a text reference for this. Considering it was one of Fraser's regrets about his Prime Ministership, but the only sources are video and television which we can't cite. Lester 05:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Malcolm Fraser, Howard critic. Oh, and ex-Prime Minister
Perhaps we need to run the facuum cleaner over this article. How come the section on "Criticism of John Howard" is only a few lines shorter than the section on "Prime Minister"? --Pete (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Because former Prime Ministers dont attack their former political parties in Australia. Except for Fraser. Why not be a constructive editor and expand his Prime Minister section? Remember, lack of one content doesn't justify the removal of another. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that this is something that goes beyond one editor. Having an article on a notable Australian that is virtually a stub on the reason why he is notable, but devotes a lot of space to more trivial activities, isn't much chop as a biographical article. Unless, of course, your aim is to turn Wikipedia into an attack on people you don't like. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone and everyone is welcome to expand on the article. The rule is that we don't delete contents to compensate for lack of other contents. If the PM section is too small, expand it. But a lot of editors have come across the criticism of howard section, some of which can be seen above. If I and others who haven't removed it's contents am wrong in wishing to keep the statements contained within criticism of howard, others would have, or will come, to complain and remove, with talk page agreement. But it hasn't happened so far, apart from you who's activities and attitudes can be seen at Talk:John Howard. Funny, you call it essentially a stub when two sections above Guy0307 calls it a B or a GA article. Funny that. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Skyring(Pete): I hear you complaining that the section about Fraser's Prime Minstership is only the length of a stub. Are you asking other people to expand it? Rather than ask other people to do it, why don't you expand the Prime Minister section? That would be a better option than threatening to 'vacuum clean' and 'cleanse' the few referenced sections of the article. Do some adding, rather than subtracting (which takes more work).Lester 04:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm merely pointing out the problem, Lester. Think of me as a vehicle inspector pulling over cars that look a bit dodgy. I can point out the brake lights that aren't working, the frayed seatbelts, the expired registration, but although I could do the repair work and pay the rego myself, and I'm sure the vehicle owner would like that very much, I don't have to. There's a problem in this article, and I seem to have general agreement on this point. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, Timeshift, Guy0307 said it was a B or GA. And you yourself sent him away with a flee in his ear. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- To Skyring(Pete), you didn't only say the article needs repair. You inferred you were going to run the cleaner over it to cleanse it, and by that I assume you want to cleanse the article of Fraser's criticism of Howard, like you have said you want to remove criticism of Howard in many other articles on Wikipedia. It's becoming a pattern. Lester 09:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Skyring(Pete): I hear you complaining that the section about Fraser's Prime Minstership is only the length of a stub. Are you asking other people to expand it? Rather than ask other people to do it, why don't you expand the Prime Minister section? That would be a better option than threatening to 'vacuum clean' and 'cleanse' the few referenced sections of the article. Do some adding, rather than subtracting (which takes more work).Lester 04:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone and everyone is welcome to expand on the article. The rule is that we don't delete contents to compensate for lack of other contents. If the PM section is too small, expand it. But a lot of editors have come across the criticism of howard section, some of which can be seen above. If I and others who haven't removed it's contents am wrong in wishing to keep the statements contained within criticism of howard, others would have, or will come, to complain and remove, with talk page agreement. But it hasn't happened so far, apart from you who's activities and attitudes can be seen at Talk:John Howard. Funny, you call it essentially a stub when two sections above Guy0307 calls it a B or a GA article. Funny that. Timeshift (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think that this is something that goes beyond one editor. Having an article on a notable Australian that is virtually a stub on the reason why he is notable, but devotes a lot of space to more trivial activities, isn't much chop as a biographical article. Unless, of course, your aim is to turn Wikipedia into an attack on people you don't like. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The "Criticism of Howard" (now "Estrangement from the Liberal Party") section needs to be at least halved in size, now that Howard is out of government. Not sure which bits should go, though. --Surturz (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
