Talk:Stanley Bruce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
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.
Flag
Portal
 Stanley Bruce 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] Move back to Stanley Bruce

Wikipedia: naming conventions (names and titles) says:

When individuals received hereditary peerages after retiring from the post of Prime Minister (unless they are better known for their later career under an additional/alternative title), or for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity. Examples: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell") (but Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth not "Henry Addington").

--This article therefore should live at Stanley Bruce, not 1st Viscount Bruce. Slac speak up! 08:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The naming convention refers to Prime Ministers of Great Britain who are ennobled, not those of Commonwealth countries. There is a very notable difference, especially given the fact that Australia was so much more closely-tied with Britain then that the post of Australian Prime Minister was not of the prestige and independence it carries today. Therefore, the page should be titled as would be any, for example, Governor-General or local Premier — with the title. Wally 21:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But it seems hard to justify that there should be one rule for British Prime Ministers and another for Australian Prime Ministers especially since as you mention, they were so close. Moreover, the policy doesn't specifically mention "British". The reason for the policy is to ensure that public figures are listed under the name by which they are most frequently known: Lord Houpeton was known as Lord Houpeton, so that's where the page is. Anthony Eden, despite the fact that he was ennobled after his prime ministership is known as Anthony Eden, and similarly with Bruce. It's simply a matter of listing the page under what he is most commonly known. Forrest should simply be listed as Forrest, since histories of his Premiership refer to him as Forrest, not as Lord Forrest. Slac speak up! 21:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the title was Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, not Viscount Bruce, it should either be at Stanley Bruce or Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne. The current location, at any rate, is wrong. Proteus (Talk) 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a convention not to include the "of" part of British peers' titles. The conventions on this subject are extremely complicated. Only User:Emsworth seems to understand them, so perhaps you should ask him. Adam 00:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Every modern peerage is created in two parts: the actual title, and a territorial designation, the latter normally in the form "of X in the County of Y". Lady Thatcher, for instance, was created "Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire"; her title is "Baroness Thatcher", not "Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven", as the "of Kesteven" is what's normally colloquially referred to as "after the comma". Some peerages, however, have "of X" bits before as well as after the comma: Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for instance, was created "Baron Falconer of Thoroton, of Thoroton in the County of Nottinghamshire"; his title is "Baron Falconer of Thoroton", not "Baron Falconer", and he can never correctly be referred to as "Lord Falconer" (though he often is). Bruce's peerage was of the latter type: he was created "Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, of Westminster Gardens in the City of Westminster"; his title was therefore "Viscount Bruce of Melbourne", not "Viscount Bruce" (there already being a plain "Bruce" title in "Earl Bruce, of Whorlton in the County of York", an Earldom created as a subsidiary title of the Marquessate of Ailesbury). Proteus (Talk) 08:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've asked him; hopefully he can assist us here. Slac speak up! 01:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to note that I cannot claim to know more about the nobility than Proteus, who is truly an expert on the subject. His statement above on territorial designations above is absolutely correct. Thus, the article belongs at either Stanley Bruce, 1st Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, or at Stanley Bruce. -- Emsworth 10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true that he was plain Mr Bruce when he was Prime Minister, but he lived for 38 years after leaving that office, and held a variety of other posts, and for two-thirds of that time he was known as Lord Bruce. One could make a good case that was known to more people as Lord Bruce than he was as Mr Bruce. But I don't much care which title for the article is used: debates like this greatly increase my admiration for Robespierre. Adam 13:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment scale

This shows as only of "mid" importance. I must respectfully disagree. He was a PM, and the only PM in Australia to lose his own seat. I'd say that he was very significant. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK but then Barton will have to be high (and maybe Watson)Grahamec 11:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
IIRC Rebecca (or CJ?) and I discussed this a while ago - I set some of the PMs as some were medium some were high, one was reverted, I told them of the inconsistency, and they didn't realise. We were deciding whether to catagorise all Australian PMs as mid or high importance. But we never got around to doing anything :P Wikiproject politics talk page is the place for this. Timeshift 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant photos

Timeshift has cluttered this and all the Australian PM articles with redundant, unframed and uncaptioned photos. When I removed them, I was subjected to a torrent of personal abuse. He has now restored them. I am not going to repeat that experience, but someone who knows how to handle obstinate and ill-mannered people like him better than I do should make an effort to persuade him that these photos are ugly and useless, and should be removed. The photos of the official prime ministerial portraits, by the way, are clearly breaches of copyright. Intelligent Mr Toad 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of any discussion at all, having checked this page, his talk page and yours. Also, copyright on pictures taken in 1929 or previously would have expired the year after I was born, which was quite a while ago. With allegations of abusive conduct, I would be at least expecting to see some evidence somewhere of dialogue occurring, otherwise it could be viewed as a personal attack. Orderinchaos 11:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
a) You're the only one that takes issue with multiple PM images. b) I don't recall personal abuse (but hey, anything can be seen as abuse these days). c) See above re copyright. d) If you believe the photos are ugly, don't look at the man, or if it's the quality of the picture, find a better quality one. www.pictureaustralia.org is a good place to start. It seems you want to make a fuss for the point of making a fuss. Timeshift 11:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

From Timeshift's talk page, 27 July (now deleted):

I have deleted all the redundant and uncaptioned photos you added to the Australian Prime Minister articles. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery and is not improved by multiple virtually identical photos. Also, the official PM portraits are not in the public domain. Intelligent Mr Toad 09:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Bite me. You hear me? Bite me. I'm sick and tired of crap from people like you, I could be annoying like you too but I choose to be productive on wikipedia instead. Repeated again for the hearing impaired: BITE ME. Timeshift 10:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I call that personal abuse, particularly when totally unprovoked - I had never dealt with Timeshift before.

I am not arguing that the old photos of PMs are copyright, only the portraits. The old photos are just ugly and redundant, especially when they are not formatted to Wikipedia style and have no captions. Intelligent Mr Toad 12:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears, now I look, to be at User talk:Timeshift9/Archive3#Redundant_photos. His reply six hours later with a presumably clearer head lays out his position reasonably clearly. I agree the photos could be better positioned, but I don't have any problem with their being there. On consideration, your original post may have been interpreted as patronising, given its recipient was a user with a reasonably solid history including an FA. Orderinchaos 12:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, now I remember. For starters, don't accuse me of deleting it. It is still there for all and sundry to read. And how can you argue only the portraits are copyright if they've also been around for over 50 years? And why complain about style or captions? You're more than welcome to fix/add. But removing? Destructive, pointless, and not carried out by anyone except you. Timeshift 12:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My original comment to Timeshift was perfectly straightforward and not at all patronising. Adding photos that serve no useful purpose but merely duplicate existing ones, particularly with no frames, no captions, and no regard to positioning, is not appropriate conduct. Nor is using the language directed at me in response to my original comment. I note he is continuing to use a very aggressive tone. This kind of adolescent behaviour is what drives many people away from Wikipedia.
  • In most cases it is not a matter of "fix and add." What is the point of three almost identical photos captioned "Stanley Bruce"? I don't object to multiple photos where they show different things, but these ones, and most of the others Timeshift has added to the PM articles, do not. I repeat my original point that Wikipedia is not a photo gallery.
  • The copyright status of photos of the official portraits has been debated here before and they were ruled to be not in the public domain. I'm not a copyright lawyer but that was the consensus of experts. The 50-year rule applies not to the paintings themselves but to the photos of the paintings, which are clearly less than 50 years old and are someone's copyright, unless Timeshift took them himself, which I doubt since photography is not permitted in the Parliament House gallery where they hang. Intelligent Mr Toad 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
And you're the only one to take issue with the photos, why? You're more than welcome to find a better looking photo if its the quality you're not happy with, and you're also welcome to fix formatting/layout/caption issues. Update: And i've just fixed them with better photos and captions. It's a nice feeling to contribute instead of taking away from wikipedia. Timeshift 23:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exploiting Fears

When you use the phrase "exploited public fears of communism and militant trade unions" it does tend to have a negative connotation even though technically it may be correct. It gives the impression that Bruce improperly or unjustifiably took advantage of the contemporary false fears of communism and militant trade unionism. Australia in the 1920s was not the same as it is today. Totalitarianism, in one form manifested by Communism, was a very real threat. The western democracies Germany and Italy had either fallen to it or were threatened with it by attempted coups. (The Beer Hall Putsch) Russia had fallen into the horrors of the revolution and the subsequent civil war. The 1926 British General Strike, [1926_United_Kingdom_general_strike] promoted by the militant unions was something that scared all in the UK, even those in the Labour Party. The twenties and thirties were more turbulent times.

I would suggest "...won favour by responding to public concerns about communism and militant trade unions.." as a more neutral way to describe his role.

Edward Carson 01:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that the opposite. Bruce exploited these fears just like Menzies did. Timeshift 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Howard - Bennelong Comparisons

I removed this:

He is the only Australian Prime Minister to have suffered this fate (John Howard become the second, following the results in the 2007 general election that he has lost his seat of Bennelong to Maxine McKew).

because it is not official yet. Please abstain until the result is in. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly likely that John Howard will lose his seat, but as I have said it is not yet official. When it does occur I favour the latest edit which states: For more than 70 years , he was the only Australian Prime Minister to have suffered this fate until John Howard in 2007.

But we need to be patient. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Grammatically, I'd prefer: For more than 70 years, until John Howard lost his seat in the 2007 election, he was the only Australian Prime Minister to have suffered this fate. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Once the postal votes are in, perhaps we won't even need to change the page ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.120.88 (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha, you don't recover two percent on postal votes mate. All the election analysts have called it for Labor, and McKew and Howard have unofficially declared. But have fun dreaming on :-) Timeshift (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of waiting until the cabinet (and Parliamentary Secretaries) are sworn in on Monday by the GG before we edit this page. Just to make sure it is official (though I don't think it's in doubt)Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McKew and Holloway

With all the talk about McKew beating Howard (assuming she has), I've been wondering what ever happened to Ted Holloway. I mean, was he as well-known in his day as Maxine McKew has become in ours? Was he some sort of cult hero for the Labor Party? A large proportion of Australians could name Bruce as the only defeated PM in his own seat, but I'd bet less than 1 in 1000 could tell you who beat him. So, why is that Bruce's defeat has gone down in the political annals, but the man who actually won the seat is even less than a political footnote these days? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's trivia really isn't it? Only die-hard political historians (Kim Beasley anyone) really know his name. Who really knows what will happen with McKew in terms of her historical longevity?Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Maxine was already a well-known public figure, and I'd be very surprised if she ever slipped into the obscurity that seems to have befallen Ted Holloway. But trivia or not, I'd really like to know more about him. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean like Ted Holloway and his entry in the Australia Dictionary of Biography? Timrollpickering (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)