This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
John Hewson 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Earlier this week administrator @
Graeme Bartlett: reverted some edits by
user: Celco85 in this article as well as some other articles resulting in the editor being blocked for 24 hours. Yesterday the editor returned with some more unacceptable edits - one of which was reverted by @
Bumbubookworm: (who has also reverted edits by this editor in other articles) and the rest by myself. It was then found that the article contained many bare references, some were duplicates and some did not work. With the assistance of @
MarnetteD: this was sorted out so that all references appeared correct. Shortly after this was completed the editor concerned made a number more edits where I immediately found that one reference was duplicated which I deleted. And others also appear duplicated or without cover, making the reference section again look a mess. Hence I have again reverted to the previous version by MarnetteD. In article
Carolyn Hewson John Hewson's second wife, it had been edited in that John Hewson was at fault in the break up of his first marriage based on a statement by his first wife which could not be considered a reliable source - this have also been reverted.
Fleet Lists (
talk)
04:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Neither of those references were dead. One of them worked fine for me while for the other one an archived version was available which has been used in place of the one which was not working so your edits have again all been reverted. And if a reference is dead it should not be deleted but flagged as a dead link. And also when editing on a talk page please add your signature which you =have not dome on either occasion.
Fleet Lists (
talk)
11:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
22 December John Hewson 3 edits by the same editor with unsatisfactory references - reverted - editor reverted it next day with one other edit - these were reverted by
User:Bumbubookworm but since again edited by the editor concerned.
20 December
Michael Kroger 4 edits by the editor concerned - reverted but since again reverted by the editor concerned.
Today
Brighton Icebergers This was cleaned up by myself and Bumbubookworm last week but today again four rubbish edits - two of whichhave been reverted so far.
Today
Bill Clinton One rubbish edit which I have reverted.
Today
Melanie Trump Two rubbish edits which others have reverted
Hewson did some remarkable things. Credit where credit is due. But this article reads like an enrolment of Hewson. Needs editing and abbreviating.
BuckyRodgers (
talk)
09:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)reply
it was Petro Georgiou who was John Hewson's chief of staff in 1994 to answer a question asked by a ip user.
--~Celco85~~ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Celco85 (
talk •
contribs) 10:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
the question that was asked about 43 votes that is --Celco85
Celco85 (
talk)
10:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
While I can see that Petro Georgiou was Hewson's chief of staff, he however wasn't the person who wrote the book claiming that Hewson would have handed the leadership to Downer if he won but with less than 47 votes, which is how many votes he won in 1993, which is what the question about.reply
Hawke told Hewson he let Australia down in his opinion by not becoming Prime Minister this can this be placed back in the article --Celco85
Celco85 (
talk) 08:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
[
[1]]
--Celco85
Celco85 (
talk)
08:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)reply
This can not be accepted without a source.
Talk:Bob Hawke throws doubt on the source used. Also the source does NOT support that Bob Hawke said this - only that Hewson claims that Hawke said this - which is not the same thing. Hence any wording in the article must reflect this. And as myself and at least two editors have suggested to you on a number of occasions, references should by formatted. It should not be left to other editors to continually clean up your edits after you.
Fleet Lists (
talk)
07:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Even if Hewson is the one claiming it everyone knows Hawke had contempt for Paul Keating after he took the job of PM From him.--Celco85
Celco85 (
talk)
09:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
More to the point, the question here is relevance. Hewson's long-after-the-fact recollection of something Bob Hawke said to him does not belong in an encyclopedic article.
Frickeg (
talk)
10:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Yngvadottir and
Deepfriedokra: This has again been reverted: "for them lying to them " does not make sense as there is no explanation as to who the two "them"s refer to and as usual the reference you have added has not been formatted correctly and is already present elsewhere in the article correctly formatted. Please learn how to handle reference situations which should be formatted correctly and not duplicated. And we dont need every statement John Hewson has ever made to be included in this article.
Fleet Lists (
talk)
07:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Celco85: Fleet Lists is right, you shouldn't be presenting sources that are already in the article as if they're new. I looked at the edit and revert, and noticed a number of places where the article needed copyediting, so I went ahead and put in the information, while moving some stuff around (including getting rid of that sudden one-sentence paragraph saying he supported LGBT rights and abortion; his support for gay rights was mentioned earlier, so I tucked it in there (but I ought to have changed the accessdate ...). I also marked something as needing a citation; perhaps you can find a source? That would be more useful than constantly trying to tuck in one more thing he said. However, it would be better if we had a third-party report on his resignation speech, rather than using the official transcript; somebody surely wrote about it in the papers at the time, or in a retrospective on his career (where they will also have remarked on his short tenure as party leader and his not having held a ministerial post ... can you find such references in newspaper archives?) And if you want to use a reference a second time, you know how to do so, right? Change the <ref> on it the first time to <ref name=...> It's best if the name (the "...") is one word (but it can't be figures), but it can be more than one word if you put it in quotation marks: <ref name=resignation> or <ref name="1995 speech"> but not <ref name=1995>. Then the second time you use it, instead of <ref>...</ref>, you put <ref name=.../>: <ref name=resignation/> or <ref name="1995 speech"/>. Most articles already have at least one example of named references.
John Hewson is one of the topics you seem to find it hard to let go of, and it would probably be better if you tried to leave this article alone for a while, because you still aren't good at summarizing clearly, or figuring out whether something is already stated in the article in a different way. But if you really think it needs further improvement, adding independent references for points that are already made would be a useful thing for you to do.
Yngvadottir (
talk)
09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Confused The positioning of the ping led me to believe an edit of mine was reverted. Trying to see the point of the addition of the "revenge" edit. I've much to do today and try to avoid content disputes on a good day-- which this is not. Anyway, the formatting and pings make it hard to tell who is saying what to whom about which. Cheers, my confidence is in y'all to sort it out. Tschau! --Deepfriedokra(talk)13:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately the editor did not take the advice of
Yngvadottir and continued to edit this article still not formatting references (also in some other articles) which have all again been reverted. I did make a mistake where in one case I reverted the wrong edit, but this has been corrected.
Fleet Lists (
talk)
21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Instant Comma's question
"If the one source supports all these facts, why not put everything in the same paragraph?"
In answer to Instant Comma's question.
It is basically common courtesy to the reader to put these facts separately for ease of reading.
I didn't appreciate Instant Comma removing the facts about Hewson's preselection and his early days in Parliament that I put in on the basis that it was unsourced.
It wasn't unsourced as I put in the article from Trove which he had also removed.
I suggest that he should have checked with the sourced article to see if it correlated with what I wrote in this article instead of immediately removing it without doing such a check.
One of your sentences was sourced. The rest were not. There was no way for the reader to know that the reference at the end of your sixth paragraph applied to the preceding five as well. My solution was to pull all six paragraphs together. Given that each of these paragraphs was long one-sentence long, this would have the added benefit of making your edit conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style: "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text" (see
MOS:PARA).
Instant Comma (
talk)
16:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Mr Abbott
Tony Abbott worked for Hewson as his Media Advisor and near the
Abbott photo on the page is a sentence based on remarks Abbott made about Hewson's recently ended leadership of the
Liberal party. --Celco85
Celco85 (
talk)
08:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Promote rivals
I remember when speculation on John Hewson's leadership at the time it was said that his strategy in trying to save his leadership was to promote rivals on his frontbench.
Unfortunately now I am not able to find any of this online.