![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why is the phrase 'militant youth' used? Wasn't he a copy boy for the Westrailian? Not even an army cadet, so far as I know. Sam Wilson 01:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
He was a militant socialist. Adam 02:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Anyone want to shed some light on the 'Iron' nickname?
His ministers held office until July 6, but did he do so as well, given that he had died the previous day? Biruitorul 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A person is legally a minister until their commission is terminated by the Governor-General, even if they are dead. Adam 11:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is still true that a person is legally a minister until their commission is terminated by the Governor-General, unless they resign. That was the case with Holt in 1967, and also with Lyons and Curtin. I think a search of the Commonwealth Gazette would reveal that the Parliamentary Handbook is wrong, and that Curtin remained PM until his commission was terminated on the 6th. Adam 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
To reply to all the above points in order:
The article reads:
Ummm... Isn't all of Australia below the equator? DarkSideOfTheSpoon 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone has muddled up their history. I'm in Thailand at the moment so I can't check, but my recollection is that when Curtin introduced conscription in 1942 it was with the proviso (to appease anti-conscriptionists in his own party) that conscripts would be used only for the defence of Australia, and would not be deployed north of the Equator. That was why the conscripts or "chockos" did most of the fighting in New Guinea, while the regulars were deployed further afield. Adam 16:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Act 1943 for explanation. Lentisco 06:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That article suggests that Menzies was PM in 1943, so it doesn't seem very reliable. Adam 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it 'suggests' that- possibly. But it doesnt state or infer it. What do you mean it 'seems' to not be reliable?. Lentisco 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I was being polite - obviously an article written by someone who thinks Menzies was PM in 1943 in not reliable. Adam 05:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree whoever that bad reprehensible person is who believes that Menzies was PM in 1943 is worse than unreliable! Lets form a witchhunt. I appoint Adam Carr as Witchfinder-general. Lentisco 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have already held that position for some time, but thanks anyway. Adam 07:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is he Australia's greatest Prime Minister? If you're going to make the claim you really should provide some reasons (what did he do that was so great?) and attribute the claim. I suspect the Liberal Party is rather fond of Menzies, and baby-boomer Laborites probably have a soft spot for Whitlam (despite his well-acknowledged flaws).-- Robert Merkel 08:05, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I didn't say he was the greatest - I said that he was regarded by many as the greatest (actually, I edited it to make the distinction). The various biographies I've read of him seem to agree. Further, Menzies and Whitlam are not generally referred to as the 'greatest PM' by members of the other side of politics, whereas John Curtin has been (for instance, Richard Court, former Liberal Premier of Western Australia). Even his contemporaries regarded him highly - eg. Forde and MacArthur (and these were long-held views, not just ones that cropped up after he died). The National Archives also cites him as being 'widely regarded as one of the greatest'. - Merric
The undeniable authority of the John Curtin Senior High School student diary concurs: he is, in fact, Australia's Greatest PM. (...and if only there were a way of marking up irony...) Sam 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, although it's true that many Australians regard him as 'greatest PM', you should still reference that ;)-- Nervousbreakdance 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
He's called great because he was a big-war prime minister. War being the health of the state, the big war winners are naturally assumed to be great by those that love the state. Think Lincoln, Roosevelt, Churchill for examples. He's probably also liked for his socialist tendencies toward growing the state, such as the introduction of federal income taxes and socialization of hospitals. For these alone I would consider him to be one of Australia's most destructive ever leaders.
The one thing he did do right was to oppose conscription during WWI, but he reversed his views when he was in the grip of power. He also loosened his Marxist views for the mainstream. Seems to me a man who bent his philosophy according to political necessity. I guess that's what most politicians do though. Hence, greatness should rarely be used to describe them. Iamso910 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to any of you interested, ABC will be showing their bio-pic about Curtin this Sunday (22nd) at 8:30pm. No, I do not work for the ABC. Rothery 05:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Were they calling Curtin "Jim" in the Curtin movie on ABC? If that was his nickname, I can't see it mentioned in the article anywhere. Can anybody shed light on this, or did I just mishear? Because I'm pretty sure he was refered to as Jim a fair few times... Cheers. Rothery 01:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
John Curtin. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
According to this article, Mr Curtin remained in office as PM until the day after he died. As far as my logic goes, a man cannot hold an office once dead. True, no one was selected to replace him until that next day, but this just means the office was vacant until that time, right? -- Xyzzyva 00:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure the deputy becomes PM at the instant of loss of cognition. 220.240.229.144 ( talk) 06:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The unsourced statement "Many Australians regard him as the country's greatest political leader and greatest Prime Minister" is enough to warrant a POV tag on its own, but the article also contains a whole section devoted to the 'legend' of John Curtain, giving him a deity-like status (which is a bit much for a politician). Can someone please balance this article out? This is a factual encyclopedia article, not a memorial tribute. This guy supported White Australia as much as any other mainstream politician of the times. Black-Velvet 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The "scared rabbits" as Doug-out called them, didn't see Curtin as a legend as he publicly agreed with the statement. When the British cabinet papers were released about the so called argument between Curtin and Churchill a few years ago, it turned out that Curtin merely wanted the troops to have a short break in Oz before being sent to Singapore, as did happen. Churchill wanted them to go straight to Singapore. The hero epithet "the man who brought the troops home" seems to have been quietly forgotten by the party faithful. 220.240.229.144 ( talk) 06:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Australia did not become legally independent in 1942. This is just another bit of leftist fantasy. The Privy Council remained the highest appeal court until 1988. The Palace must still approve the GG as of 2016. Australia was not declared an independent country from the UK until the Australia Act 1988. This was actually due to incompetence in the wording of the original AA/1901. By independent, I mean no pre-1901 UK laws nor UK Constitution could be used as legal argument in Aus. Precedent is acceptable, although may it be taken from any Commonwealth country, and potentially from the US, if the same law is the same. The 1988 Act also repealed basic human rights present in the UK constitution, that are not in the Aus Conts. There is no requirement for States to have courts. There is requirement for judicial decisions on guilt and punishment only for the Commonwealth. State premiers can simply switch to martial law whenever they feel like it. Slavery, banned in the UK from 1832, is still constitutional here. 210.185.78.76 ( talk) 03:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of John Curtin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "immi.gov.au":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Curtin. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Curtin. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)