Talk:Jack Lang (Australian politician)

POV Tag

The summary of the 1932 crisis is very POV. To suggest that the governors actions were "unconstitutional and illegal in dismissing Lang", and to say that "the Governor did not have the constitutional right and legal jurisdiction to personally determine the Lang Ministry's actions as a breach of criminal law, prior to the legal system convicting the Premier's Ministry of such" are both quite wrong, and very biased.

On the face of it Lang was behaving illegally. On the face of it the governor had the legal power to dismiss him. To suggest otherwise is indicative of a alarming degree of bias against the governor.

The Canadian example is not relevant, there was no blatantly illegal acts or revolutionary conduct. For Lang didn't just breach a few regulations.

Imagine if a premier today was to direct all government agencies to withdraw all of their funds in cash, and deposit it all with allies of the premier in the Trades Union Hall, or the Chamber of Commerce - contrary to probably dozens of laws, rules and regulations, and hundreds of years of accepted financial controls. This was no technical breach, and would be what it was interpreted as at the time - revolutionary.

I question the statement that Lang was not a socialist. He was a member of the Labour Party - so he was clearly a socialist, or social democrat, if you like. He was not a pro-Soviet Communist - though his illegal actions in 1932 suggest he did have a revolutionary bent.JohnC (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have added an NPOV tag for that same reason. The lack of citation work also contributes to a whole tonne of unlinked unreferenced claims being made. I have tried to remove some and clean it up, only to be put back by some unknown ISP editor. There are major issues on this page. I'd like to see this page protected, so that someone with a bit of neutrality can cleanup this page. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have fully-protected the page because semi-protection isn't appropriate for content disputes. I have deleted a rather incivil reply left here by an anonymous IP; you can view it in the history of this page and address any valid points you find. If you need to make a non-controversial or consensus-based edit during the protection period, you can use the {{editprotected}} tag on this talk page as a beacon to administrators to make the edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Amatulić for your efficient response to this matter. Based upon the IP's response, there are not only definite POV issues here but also onwership issues as well. The IP accused me of being on a particular point of view, when all I have done is attempt to address, in a neutral manner and assuming good faith, the bias evident in the ISP's edits and response. Had they addressed my concerns earlier, like I had suggested, the block may not have been necessary, but I digress. Furthermore, the poor quality edits of the user, while not a bad thing in itself, contributes to the whole biased and poor quality nature of this page with a ton of dubious references, no citation, no linking, and gratuitous bias (combined with bogus political conspiracy) evident from start to finish. There are significant issues here that require a total rewrite and restructure of this page. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not some conspiracy against Lang, rather it is to address the bias which you so clearly have. If you'd like to make a balanced argument for lang's role in the dismissal, which was clearly illegal in context and with respect to precedence, then please make it here in a civil manner. I'm not here to make a huge debate about it, nor am I particularly interested in arguing with you or in regards to your thesis, but I am interested in the goodwill of wikipedia and the quality of this page, something that you clearly don't have. Please refer to WP:NPOV for more information.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Key facts appear to be missing, like Lang's decision to combine with the UAP to bring down the Scullin gov, his personal rivalry with Theodore and his agreement to the Premier's Plan. I'm sure there a more and ill try to add the stuff i can find a source for, and well done on reducing the POV of the article. --Matthewdavies (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; I press my case, which is correct. The dismissal of Jack Lang by Sir Philip Game, on the official grounds which Game did, was unconstitutional and illegal.

If any of you care to, write up an adequate argument against me when I publish my thesis as a book, 'The Big Fella & His Times: Remembering Jack Lang'. Oh, and, leave the logically fallacious sophisms behind; they are of no use to you now and will do you no good then, (ie. argument ad absurdism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.105.176 (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this POV dispute current??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Switch to federal politics

He remained a member of the Legislative Assembly until 1946, when he was unexpectedly elected as the Member for Reid in the Australian House of Representatives.

This reads the same way as if he was walking along a footpath and was unexpectedly hit by a car. He must first have nominated for the federal seat - so his election wasn't all that much "unexpected" - and must first have resigned his state seat, or have retired from it, before even being eligible to nominate for Reid. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I re-worded it,hope it is satisfactory. --Matthewdavies (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made some further changes. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hilda Amelia Bredt (1878–1964)

Fixed to 1878 (instead of 1858) the birth date of H.A. Bredt.

Source:

• http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/lang-john-thomas-jack-7027 : "On 14 March 1896 at St Francis Church Lang married 17-year-old Hilda Bredt".

(Sorry, I don't know how (or whether) to include this source in the main article.)

--FvdP (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Idle Speculation

The claim that the AIF could fight the State Police is idle humbug. In the 1920s the NSW state militia, which included the largest cavlary forces of the 12+16th, would have more than rivaled any troops the Commonwealth could have mustered. States collected the bulk of taxes until 1939, which the article has not mentioned.61.68.166.79 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I was not incorrect about Reid in 1949 49.3.72.79 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Siegfried Nugent said I was incorrect in my edit on Lang not contesting Reid. I was not incorrect on that and there was no way I would have known that he contested Blaxland instead as the article gave the impression that he was defeated in Reid. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe do some research first before making changes, as there are many ways in which you "could have known". The original wording of the article (which I didn't write) was: "In 1949 he was defeated and never held office again", a correct statement, but one that didn't clarify (and should have) that he didn't recontest Reid but contested Blaxland unsuccessfully, which I expanded upon in my revert. So yes, you were incorrect, in that your change implied that he retired at the 1949 election, which is not true.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said there was no way I could have known about his attempted switch to Blaxland. The original wording was based on what it said at the Australian Biography article about him. I could only go as far in getting the information I was seeking and could only provide information that I could find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)