Talk:John Hewson

Problems with this article

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)

This article regards Keating's bakery gaffe and Hewson's response. https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/127199581/13962567 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celco85 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:@Bumbubookworm:Since yesterday afternoon Australian time he has posted another 9 frivolous edits most of which again did not provide correct references - all but 1 edit reverted in two separate steps. In 1994 Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill‎ I also needed to sort out two references which he had added and ran into each other.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

the 20 to 1 source and Enough rope with Andrew Denton source are dead links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celco85 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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 One of them worked fine for me while for the other one an archived version was available which has been used in place of the one which was not working so your edits have again all been reverted.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)

@Fleet Lists: Report at WP:ANI? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A good place to looks for older Australian material is Trove https://trove.nla.gov.au as it has archived websites going back for over 20 years. But as you have worked out no need to include frivolous or speculative material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Subsequent updating problems
  • 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
  • Today Carnegie, Victoria One rubbish edit which I have reverted.
• I suspect there are some others which I have not documented.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tone of article

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)

Keatings visit to bakery

Can this be added to the article it was after the birthday cake interview? --~~Celco5~~ https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/127199581/13962567 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celco85 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Old archived question

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 --Celco85Celco85 (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.

So since it wasn't Georgiou, who was the staffer who wrote said book.49.3.72.79 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hawke

Hawke told Hewson he let Australia down in his opinion by not becoming Prime Minister this can this be placed back in the article --Celco85Celco85 (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [[1]] --Celco85Celco85 (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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.--Celco85Celco85 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Everyone does NOT know so it mist be covered. No such assumptions should be made.Fleet Lists (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

Hewson's revenge remark

This is the speech where Hewson says the revenge thing or rather how the voters will get revenge on the Keating government for lying to them about the Coalition in 1993 by electing John Howard Prime Minister in 1996. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F1995-02-27%2F0049%22 --Celco85Celco85 (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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.

It frankly felt like a misrepresentation to me. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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. --Celco85Celco85 (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

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.

Can anyone help on this? 49.3.72.79 (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)