Talk:Bob Hawke/Archive 1

earlier unsigned irrelevent issues

I need to verify Bob Hawke's world record for drinking beer in 11 seconds based on this article. Does anyone have more info and a source for this data? Thanks!

Not as such, but it is certainly true. He was listed in the Guinness Book of Records for many years and it was commonly reffered to in the press. Given the scrutiny of Hawke's life since he became PM, it would be astonishing to discover that it wasn;t true and no journalist had yet discovered it. !!!

-Total BS. 2.5 pints equals 40 ounces. A 40 oz in 11 seconds is not very fast. The Fox from the Man Show wouldv'e manhandled this fool. I could beat that record easily, I will try to document it. I suggest you delete this non-record because it isn't shit. - thrax ---

This record is extremely well known in Australia. If you claim you can do better, it's up to you to prove it. Good luck. JackofOz 08:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that Guinness formerly did indeed publish records for beer consumption (unsurprising, given the book's origin and sponsorhip) but ceased to accept new ones years ago for fear of being implicated in cases of severe alcohol poisoning or accused of encouraging alcohol abuse, and now seems to have ended publication of even those set prior to the ban being implemented. I, for one, accept Hawke's record as being 'legitimate' in the sense that it once had the imprimatur of Guiness, not that it necessarily represents the most prodigious consumption ever achieved. (And I don't want to be accused of tacit approval of acute alcohol intoxication, either!) Rlquall 01:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that in an extract from Hawke's autobiography (mentioned below) the record was in drinking from a pewter tankard, this is also recorded as a sconce pot in the report of his later doctorate from Oxford: http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2003/7/4/20179.html. The confusion over a yard glass stems from a staged photograph in an Australian newspaper during Hawke's years at the ACTU. In the photograph he is pictured at an Australian university (not Oxford where the incident occurred), and it was taken almost 20 years after the Oxford incident. Unfortunately I cannot find a reference to the photograph but remember it clearly. I can also find no corroboration that the Oxford attempt, or indeed any subsequent attempt, ever made it into the Guinness Book of Records. Despite this, the legend that surrounded this incident coloured Hawke's political career and on that point alone the mention should remain, albeit with better references. Ajdonnison 05:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was amused by the following extract from Hawke's entry:

"They moved to Canberra while Hawke started studying for a doctorate at the Australian National University. But Hawke abandoned the degree in 1958 when he was offered a post as research officer at the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) headquarters in Melbourne."

My former lecturer, Dennis, was a fellow PhD student with Hawke at ANU and tells the story of Hawke leaving the university somewhat differently. One evening Dennis was assisting with a function for Australia's Anglican Bishops that was being held at ANU when he (and all the bishops) saw Hawke and a male friend naked and drunk staggering down the lane towards them, singing a bawdy song. A number of the bishops were so shocked they dropped their tea cups. Hawke and his friend were subsequently expelled from ANU and Hawke eventually found work with the ACTU. One could argue that if Hawke continued with his PhD he wouldn't have become Prime Minister.

I considered adding this to his entry but thought it might be safer to include here instead.

--Roisterer 01:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

If this story can be documented - that is, if it has appeared in print without refutation, or if you have spoken to an eyewitness - it should certainly be included. Adam 02:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Could someone please remove died of shame I’m not a Hawke fan but please show respect.

whos talking shit bout hawkeys scull eh talk shit get hit

Vanished Golden Age

... and by 2004, when Howard won his fourth election, the Hawke years had come to seem like a vanished golden age to Labor voters.

User:PMelvilleAustin changed to this from 2001 & third, but I think there's no need. Unfortunately, I think this quote heard during the 2004 election commentary should be added instead:

By Howard's fourth election, in 2004, there are children that have only known Howard as PM.

(And some of them will be teenagers by his fifth election :-( ) Mark Hurd 12:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that's me alright. --AQjosh 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

23rd or 28th Prime Minister?

129.94.6.30 insists that Hawke was the 28th prime minister. This is understandable, since Hawke is the 28th entry in a typical list of prime ministers. However, this does not take into account the fact that Deakin and Fisher will appear on the list three times, and Menzies will appear twice. It seems strange to claim that Deakin was the second, fifth and seventh prime minister. And if we are going to count Deakin as the second, fifth and seventh prime minister just because he served non-contiguous terms, then shouldn't we also count prime ministers that served multiple continugous terms as multiple prime ministers. No way. The only reasonable approach is to count them uniquely, and number them in order of first appointment. Personally, I prefer not to number them at all. The number is largely meaningless after all. But as long as a number is to appear, 23 is clearly superior to 28. Snottygobble 01:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This approach concurs with the official National Archive pages. For example Malcolm Fraser is listed as being the 22nd, therefore we can see Bob Hawke must be the 23rd. --Wm 20:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 23 rather than 28 for Bob Hawke. Australia does not have an official tally of Prime Ministers, unlike the USA which does count its Presidents, and the same name can be given different numbers if the President had 2 non-consecutive terms. Americans are used to this convention, but it makes no sense to Australians to call (say) Deakin, the 2nd, and the 5th and the 7th Prime Minister. He was the 2nd person to hold the office of Prime Minister, so he is only the 2nd Prime Minister. By the same reasoning, Bob Hawke was the 23rd. If Hawke were to make a comeback and defeat John Howard (the 25th PM), Hawke would still be the 23rd PM, not the 26th. JackofOz 00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If desired, the wording could be made less ambigous. e.g.: "the 23rd person to become Prime Minister", perhaps more information could be added. e.g. "28th Prime Ministerial Term" (or something) --Wm 02:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All parliamentary and official documents follow the convention of not counting each PM more than once. Hawke is therefore the 23rd PM. An encyclopaedia is not the place for Wm to float his minority view. I will revert any changes to the numbering system. Adam 02:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have not read my commnents correctly and have inaccurately represented them. I have at no stage floated any such view. In fact, if you read my comments (ALL my comments in this section), you will see that

Hawke has been referred to as the 28th Prime Minister by many sources, the fact that the National Archives does a different way of numbering does not means it is necessarily right. I mean the Prime Minister's tenure should be reflected by the times they have served in office. Menzies for example be much rather be remembered as the 21st Prime Minister (1949-66) than his unhappy time as the 16th Prime Minister (1939-41). I don't think he would like to have these two periods jumbled together to be remembered as one. This encyclopedia is not in any way affiliated with the National Archives and therefore does not need to be written according to its standards. So it is not a matter of a minority view at all but a more efficient way of conveying information. I mean it is much easier for people to count the Prime Ministers without the need to worry if he or she has already counted this Prime Minister before.

I believe that consensus among the contributors to this page is that Hawke should be listed as the 23rd PM. I have reverted and added a footnote that explains the situation. You might like to edit the footnote to mention the alternative of 28 if counted differently. Snottygobble 05:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Drew I am having trouble finding the footnote.

I again agree with the consensus about Hawke being the 23rd not the 28th PM. I made a contribution to the debate earlier but forgot to sign it (it's there now). It is not a question of right or wrong. Americans (and some other countries) count every separate presidency, whereas Australia (and some other countries) do it the Australian way and just count the number of people who have occupied the office. Overseas, Hawke may well be referred to as the 28th Australian PM, but we ignore this numbering system in Australia, where he is always known as the 23rd PM. Surely we can make the rules about how we count our Prime Ministers (while also yielding to the different and equally valid customs other countries may have about their office-holders). JackofOz 00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Counting Prime Ministers is like anniversaries. You should not hold back counting an anniversary simply because it happens to look like one that has already been done. I count the Prime Ministers from the periods they were in and not as individuals simply because each time a Prime Minister leaves office signifies how much progress has been made during his time in office. Moving one number up each time there's a change of Prime Minister represents the continuation of progress. The Treasurers are being counted in periods and not as individuals in this encyclopedia. If nothing else this encyclopedia should try to be consistent with itself. I mean why should counting the Prime Ministers be different from the counting of their Treasurers. As to the response that it's ridiculous to count Alfred Deakin three times. Would it be ridiculous to count Grover Cleveland three times as US President if he had served a third non-consecutive term?

I noticed in the history page that JackofOz wrote that he is the 23rd Prime Minister because we Aussies says so. I feel insulted if he applied that I am not an Aussie which I am. As a response to that I am a Aussie and I say he is the 28th.--129.94.6.28 05:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Be careful - "we" could quite possibly include you. At any rate, we (including you) are all editors of this article and the consensus among us is that, unofficially, he was the 23rd. It just makes more sense to distinguish prime ministerial terms from prime ministerial incumbents - unless you think it's logical to call one person the second, fifth and seventh PM. And anyway, FWIW it works the same way in the US - Bush didn't procede down the succession when he was re-inaugurated (although, given the 2000 result, maybe he should have :). Slac speak up! 05:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that this separate numbering convention is used in the USA is in part because the phenomenon has been so uncommon there, in fact unique to one President, Grover Cleveland, who is probably more remembered by most students taking American history in school for being the 22nd and 24th Presidents than for that he stood for or accomplished. The proceedure in American states, almost all of which have had persons who served non-consecutive terms as governor, varies, but it seems to me that most follow what seems to be the consenus Austrialian convention, not that it really matters all that much.

Rlquall 01:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The left

I do not believe that there is any identifiable group of people called "the left" who regard Americans as universally inferior or who opposs any policies on the basis of them being "American". Although there are some who are from time to time, critical of American policy, Hawke himself is one of these and indeed, many Americans have been oppossed to their government's policies from time to time. The phrase "anti-American", as used here, is essentially meaningless. --Wm 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was the middle of the Vietnam War, duh. The left (you remember the left, surely?) was passionately anti-American. Take my word for it, I was there. Adam 02:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that those who oppossed the Vietnam war did so on a purely political basis with no conern with to the moral value and overall benefit of the policy of conducting war in Vietnam? Specifically, give a reference to a person who represents "the left" in Australia and has oppossed American policy on the basis of it being American. Please read Wikipeida article Anti-American_sentiment . Note that it is disputed. The term is an inflamatory one of limited value. What does it mean? Please provide your definition so that it may be used as a basis for re-working the disputed text. --Wm 02:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also refer to the wikipedia article Left_wing. Note that the article states that the term has "no particular precision". Thus I encourage you to find some re-wording that offers some sense of precise meaning. --Wm 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that those who oppossed the Vietnam war did so on a purely political basis with no conern with to the moral value and overall benefit of the policy of conducting war in Vietnam? A meaningless question. We opposed it on all those grounds. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, give a reference to a person who represents "the left" in Australia and has oppossed American policy on the basis of it being American. We are talking about events more than 30 years ago. Opposition to the US war in Vietnam was the central preoccupation of the left at that time. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean? It means oppostion to the policies of the US government, based on a deeper opposition to the economic and political system in the US, ie (as the left saw it), opposition to US imperialism. Read some history. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article about the history of the left. It is a passing reference in article about Hawke. But for your info, there was a "left" in the union movement, consisting of unions under the influence of the three communist parties (CPA, SPA and CPA-ML), plus various left-wing ALP unions. They supported Hawke against Nolan in 1969. But Hawke was always pro-American and pro-Israel, and soon broke with the left. This is all common knowledge and is documented in Blanche d'Alpuget's biography, which I suggest you read before making fatuous statements here. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please provide specific references to personalities that you regard as having anti-American views from this period. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for justification for a given phrasing, as there are currently no references supplied and as I have shown, these imprecise terms are already disputed elsewhere. If you wish to provide a reference to a specific book, kindly provide page numbers as is the normal practise when supporting a specific point. I would suggest that a personality such as the Reverand Alan Walker is an interesting example of a important leader of the anti-war movement, obviously Jim Cairns is a case in point. Who were the mainstream leaders of "the left" who were anti-American, in the sense of being oppossed to the underlying economic and political system in the US? Surely such a person, who advocated a change that system, would have to be regarded as radical revolutionary. Could you please identify who the main leaders of this anti-Americanism were?

Kindly refrain from using insulting words (like "duh" and "fatuous), I am by no means convinced by your bullying tone. Please refer to the guidelines for resolving conflict and, for example, "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party.". --Wm 05:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People who edit historical articles from a state of apparent total historical ignorance must expect a robust response. Have you perhaps heard of Albert Langer, Laurie Carmichael, Bill Hartley, Tom Uren, George Crawford, Jean McLean, Harry van Moorst, Bernie Taft, Norm Gallagher, Jack Mundey, Freda Brown or any of the other leading activists of the 60s left in Australia? All of them were furiously opposed to the US, its policies and its social and economic system. If you don't know this you have no business editing articles relating to the period. Adam 05:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will note the Wikipedia motto. "Be Bold". I am entitled to question the article and will continue to do so. Your response should, I believe remain civil and not try to indicate your own suppossed superiority. If the current text can be justified, there is no reason why a reference to that justification cannot be included in the article. I note that your bullying tone has continued in your latest post suggesting that I "have no business editing articles relating to the period." - I do indeed have such business and no extent of bullying by you will deter me from exercising it.

I have heard of some of these people but am not aware to what extent that they all oppossed to the underlying political and economic system of the United States. Would you be able to provide quotes from Tom Uren and Jack Mundey, for example that shows that they were thus oppossed? I note that Wikipedia article on Jack Mundey does not (yet) refer to any such views. I believe that Mundey was at some stage a member of the Communist Party but am not aware of when he may have left it and also not aware the extent to which the Australian party advocated changing the American political system. Tom Uren was a WWII POW so perhaps suffered in defending at least the Australian system of government and indeed became a minister in the Whitlam government. Based on his inclusion in the list, I am increasing skeptical about the list as a whole. Are all these people really noted for anti-Americanism? I think we need to build a reference of specific quotes that indicate this. --Wm 06:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam, you have reverted three times today but seem unwilling to provide any meaningful reference that indicates that "the left" as a cohesive whole had a pre-domintanly "anti-American" view at the time in question. I offered an alternative wording which you have summarily reverted without further discussion.

Please note, your link to George Crawford appear to be incorrect.

As I have indicated, I do not accept that for example Tom Uren was anti-American in any sense of oppossing the American political system, so I am unwilling to accept your list as evidence, you need to provide a reference that gives specific information about the precise nature and extent of the alleged anti-Americanism. Without such a reference, I believe that the text as it stands is imprecise and possibly misleading. --Wm 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, here we go: Uren, like all the people I named above, is a socialist. Some of them are, or were then, communists. The defining characteristic of socialists and communists is that they oppose capitalism. The US is the world's leading capitalist power. Therefore all socialists and communists oppose the US political and economic system. All socialists and communists also oppose what they call US imperialism, which they believe is a result of the operations of American capitalism. They considered the Vietnam War to be an imperialist war. In the 1960s, there were three communist parties in Australia, and there was also a socialist faction of the ALP, led by Cairns and Uren. They disagreed with each other about many things, but they all agreed in opposing the US and the Vietnam War. Between them, these groups controlled many trade unions - the Metal Workers, the Builders Laborers, the Seamen, the Wharfies, the Miners, the Transport Workers and most of the teachers unions. These unions formed a block in the ACTU, called the left. They supported Hawke for President at the 1969 ACTU Congress because they thought he was more left-wing than the other candidate, Harold Souter. This soon proved to be incorrect, but that is beside the point. These are all elementary historical facts which anyone who was around in the 60s or has read any Australian history will know. If you don't know them, you can expect to make mistakes when you try to edit Australian history articles, and when you do that you will get reverted. Adam 10:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im a bit late, but still feel it is important. Your arguement is flawed. Socialism does not in any way equate to "opposing capitalism" any more than Capitalism equates too "opposing socialism", that is a major generlisation. Socialism is a term that has no specific meaning and has certainly changed over time, but generally it implies some form of democratic government that forms an *ideal* welfare state (which is also a loaded term, but please indulge me). This welfare state may or may not include capitalism. Many Americans refer to Australia and many European countries as socialist countries for having free University (well hex anyway), and our version of Medicare. - UnlimitedAccess 19:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it invalid to suggest Socialism = Opposing Capitalism, it is also invalid to suggest Opposing Capitalism = Anti-Americanism that again is another huge generalisation. People who appose the US decisions (even consistantly) are not necessarily anti-american (even if some are). They could just disagree for sound logical reasons, or perhaps for ethical reasons, it is invalid to generalise that Socialists/People who oppose Capitalism/People who oppose (1,some,all) US decisions are anti-American. - UnlimitedAccess 19:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Anti-American" is in itself a loaded term and should be avoided when ever possible (particarly in an Encyclopedia). Labelling people as "anti-American" should be done VERY carefully and in most cases only when they label themselves as such. "Anti-American" is typically a slander, an emotive POV term used to discredit an individual and their oppinion. For example many people charge the American liberal film maker Michael Moore with being "anti-American", but that does not make it true or valid to include it on his page as a description. Of course i'm not saying you cant label people Anti-American on Wiki, it is best avoided but if you *must*, a considerable amount of care must be taken, including a a compelling amount of sources (such as flag burning, prjudicial attacks on Americans, simply for *being* American). Wm has a right to be skeptical of your charge (even if in the end you turn out to be right). - UnlimitedAccess 19:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

You haven't provided any reference at all, all you have done is assert on the basis of labelling Uren as "socialist" that therefore he must be ipso facto, anti-American. I don't accept this and suggest that it is far too simple and misleading. For example I believe that in 1965, the Labor caucus, of which Uren was a member, supported a motion in Caucus with Whitlam and Calwell to support the bombing of Hanoi by the Americans in Vietnam.

The National Library says that Uren was "was an active member of the left wing of the ALP, maintaining opposition to the Vietnam War, conscription and nuclear testing. His chief political interests are urban affairs, the environment, veterans' affairs and security and intelligence." [1]. This does not indicate that he was anti-American in the sense that you defined it, merely that he oppossed certain policies.

If you are able to supply specific details of anti-American statements or actions by Uren we can begin to accept that he was anti-American. It is not sufficient to claim this on the basis of your own authority. I suggest that you are unable to do this and therefore claim that your whole argument can be called into question. --Wm 14:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ties with Mark Latham

I just saw on the Australian Channel Ten News (Tuesday, 27 Sept. 05: 10:54 PM Melbourne, VIC) that Bob Hawke said he opposed the move to make Mark Latham the ALP leader, tried to advise him once it was unavoidable and that his advice was neglected. Surely his testimony debunks the whole section with Latham? --JPBlo

There wasn't a section, more like one line. But that's been removed. It was public knowledge at the time of the leadership challenge that Hawke preferred Beazley to Latham. Slac speak up! 20:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

hawke record authority

I don't know how to reply to the person at the top, but the hawke record is mentioned here http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/drinkingrecords.htm#hawke including an extract from Hawke's book.

Life after politics

I've pulled this out for a separate section. I think a bloke who has flourished in business to this degree -- and let's not ignore his propensity for ostentatious white suits, white shoes and big fat cigar -- can'e continue to be relegated to a section called "Decline and fall".Grimhim 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

References for recent additions?

Could the recent additions please have references?

Hawke decalared publicly that "socialist is not a word I would use to describe myself".

and

This was despite the fact that at the time, Australia was the second lowest taxing country in the OECD; a title now lost as tax as a percentage of GDP has rapidly escalated since the commencement of the Howard Government.

The second in particular sounds to be pushing a particular POV which could be mitigated with a reference or two.--Scott Davis ^Talk 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

References required

Adam Carr reverted edits by 136.153.2.2 with the comment "the quote is well remembered by everyone who was around at the time and is frequently quoted". Adam of all people should be able to provide a reference if it is so well-known (I don't recall it). Google search for the phrase seems to only provide copies of this page. WP:CITE says "...any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor.", which is exactly what the anon editor did, and so have I. If it is in one of the books listed under "further reading", please give a footnote telling us which book and page/chapter. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now provided a source. If you don't recall it you are either too young or you weren't paying attention. Adam 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly both, although I'm older than a number of the editors here. Thankyou. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Photograph of Hawke

I don't know about you guys but the photo that is currently used in this article doesn't seem to suit it. Can't someone just change the photo of it? Thanks

If you have a photo which is in the public domain and will pass the scutiny of the Wikipedia photo-Nazis, feel free to post it. Adam 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Treasurer?

The text does not mention Hawke as treasurer, but there is a succession box claiming he was treasurer (as well as PM) between when Paul Keating retired and John Button John Kerin took over. Other related wikipedia articles are vague or inconsistent on the matter and need checking if a definite answer is found. Does anybody have a verifyable reliable reference that Hawke was actually treasurer? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

When Keating resigned on 3 June 1991, Hawke had himself sworn in as Treasurer for one day while he decided between the rival claims of Ralph Willis and John Kerin for the job. He chose Kerin (the wrong choice, as it turned out) and he was sworn in on 4 June. It's in the Australian Parliamentary Handbook, 2005 edition, p742, if you need a source. I don't know how John Button got there - if it says that, it's wrong. Adam 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

John Button was a brain fade between reading and typing. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Atheism

Note that Hawke is included in the category of "atheists". Shouldn't there be a quote or reference, rather than the apparent assumption that this is common knowledge? He is referred to in the article as a "lapsed Protestant", which some atheists assuredly are, but the terms are hardly synonymous. How about some support for this assertion? Rlquall 01:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed religion=atheist from the infobox and category:Australian agnostics. Hopefully neither will be put back without references (and at least one must have been wrong anyway). --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Abolished Free Education? China/Taiwan issue?

Does anyone wanna add anything about Bob Hawke's government abolishing the free education system. I'm too young to know the details but I think it might be noteworthy. Also, if I recall correctly, Bob Hawke was the prime minister that abandoned recognition of China's government in Taiwan to recognition of the CCP. Any info about what his reaction was to the Tiananmen Square incident after showing support for, and working hard to improve relations with, the CCP would be quite interesting to read about as well. There's a mention at this Sydney Morning Herald article that he wept. I think I remember reading in a textbook somewhere that Australia granted refugee status to a lot of Chinese after that but again I'm too fuzzy on the details so if anyone feels like filling in the blanks I think this could all be good material for the article.

Bruckner or Mahler?

In the paragraph stating the differences between Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, this article states that Paul Keating, when it comes to classical composers, prefers Mahler. The article on Paul Keating states that Paul Keating prefers Bruckner. Does anybody know which statement is correct? --Astor Piazzolla 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See my answer on Keating's talk page. Rocksong 12:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At the Cricket

Does anyone remember seeing the footage of him in the stands at the cricket where he was stopped by a fan and offered a cup of beer which he promptly skulled to the applause of the crowd? Not something you'd be likely to see a Prime Minister do these days.--Jeff79 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that was only a few years ago; he certainly wasn't PM at the time. Hesperian 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thought I saw a clip of Kevin Rudd skulling a guiness on St Pats day - didn't down the whole thing in one hit mind you, but made a pretty good attempt. My understanding was that BH gave up drinking when he became PM. --Hmette 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Airline strike

This article is becoming lopsided, this was a significant event sure, but it does not warrant such a big proportion of the article, better to put the content on the article which talks about the strike. WikiTownsvillian 12:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've cut out the stuff inserted yesterday. I think a link to 1989 Australian pilots' strike (which was already there before) is sufficient. p.s. 1989 Australian pilots' strike itself is rather POV in tone, though I'm reluctant to edit it because my memory of it is rather hazy. Peter Ballard 12:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is POV or just very poorly written, I have tagged it as such but feel free to replace it with a more specific NPOV tag if you feel appropriate. Thanks, WikiTownsvillian 12:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War

Not long before Bob Hawke was defeated by Paul Keating, he sent Australian troops to Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm, the first country to agree to join the USA. This was widely vindicated in the Australian press as being done deliberately to harm Paul Keating and the Australian public generally, because most Australians, and indeed most of the world did not want to go to Iraq.

I see no mention of this in the article.

Furthermore, the GST had nothing to do with Bob Hawke's fall from power. The GST was a laughing stock, and was never taken seriously. People are still angry that John Howard sneakily introduced it. John Hewson lost the election because of the GST. Its outright nonsense to suggest that that had anything to do with why Bob Hawke quit. Why is it mentioned here?

What crap are you talking aboutthe GST? It was not sneakily introduced, you seem to have missed the election when it was part of Howards policy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.81.241 (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember a commitment given to the Australian people, by Howard in 1996, that there would he would "never, ever" bring in a GST. Alans1977 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This article needs some serious cleanup. Myrrideon 22:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawke's resignation had everything to do with the GST. See this video. As for the Iraq War, this is wikipedia, you're welcome to contribute rather than whinge that others haven't. Timeshift 23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "was" in first sentence

Using the phrase "was the 23rd Australian Prime Minister" could infer to some people that he is dead. Maybe something along the lines of "is a former Australian Prime Minister." with clarifying comments afterwards about his policies and ideologies perhaps. - Pottski —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottski (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearer reference, please

Does "Blanche d'Alpuget, Robert J. Hawke, 87" mean:

D'Alpuget, Blanche (1982), Robert J. Hawke: A Biography, p. 87???

In particular is that 87 supposed to be a page number? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Divorce from Hazel

Hazel Hawke, who for the sake of the Labor cause had put up with the open secret of his relationship with his biographer Blanche d'Alpuget while he was Prime Minister, divorced him, and shortly afterwards he married d'Alpuget.

In this age of no-fault divorce, where the only ground is irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage, is it appropriate to say that one party divorced the other? I'd have thought that words along the lines of "they divorced" was more in keeping with what happens these days. Are we saying that Hazel initiated the divorce proceedings? If there's a cite, there's no problem with saying that. Even so, given his affair with Blanche, I'd be very surprised if he did anything to prevent the divorce from happening, in which case it's hardly relevant who happened to file the papers. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Famous Speeches, Promises ????

There is no mention in this article of some of his famous and oft quoted grand promises. For example:

"by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty" - the man himself admits that this claim was one of his biggest regrets

also the promise to "plant one billion trees in ten years"

The Keating article mentions "the recession we had to have", so why aren't these famous quotes in this article ?

--Biatch (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because someone like you hasn't come along and decided to add them. Who are you asking exactly? Nobody owns this article. Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Blance d'Alpuget

Some time ago I copied some sections referring to the relationship between Hawke and his second wife Blanche d'Alpuget to flesh out the article on her. Could someone who has access to the relevant sources listed here please cite them on that article also? Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 12:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Parents' names

His parents are mentioned but not named. What are their names?
Sleigh (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ellie already there; added Clem. WWGB (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Chief" not an officially recognised postnom?

I noticed this edit amongst a couple of others by an editor. I recall Jackofoz posting a link in a similar discussion regarding officially recognised postnominals. I'm pretty sure this isn't counted as one and as such should be removed from the article's infobox? Timeshift (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

According to MOS:HONORIFIC, "honorifics derived from political activities ... should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper". WWGB (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah right then. My mistake. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:47am • 01:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Happens all the time, don't worry about it. Timeshift (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Former Aus PM skulls beer at age 82

Why do wikipedians believe this is not noteable? There are plenty of WP:RS for it in the link. The man that skulled a beer at the cricket, not only is he 82, not only is he a former Aus PM, he broke a world record earlier in his life with a larger amount of beer. It is not only noteable, it is almost inherently noteable. Hawke himself once claimed his earlier-life beer breaking record endeared him to a beer-drinking culture like no other feat of any former PM. Timeshift (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He says (or at least he used to say) that he became a teetotaller some years ago, just before he became PM, from memory. Clearly, that claim is no longer sustainable. Our only reference to this is "This shock led Hawke to make a sustained and ultimately successful effort to conquer his alcoholism".

Having one drink does not make an alcoholic, and no-one's saying he's gone back to his old drinking ways, generally speaking. But I'm sure it's raised the eyebrows of those with long memories, as it did mine. It looks like a man who has current and frequent experience with grog - but that's just my OR, and looks can deceive. Merely mentioning the fact of him sculling one beer at the cricket, without any connection to his history with alcohol and alcoholism, and its implications for his public status as a long-time supposed teetotaller, is not the way to go. In isolation, it's no more mention-worthy than Howard being seen at the cricket, or Keating calling someone a fool. But if we can find sources that make the connections I mention, it might be a different story.-- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly another reason why this should be included, and i'm totally for proper article integration. Just to make the point though, a former Australian PM in his college days in 1963 drinks 1.4 litres of beer in 11 seconds, entering guinness world records, and has a picture and caption in the article and all. In 2012 at the age of 82, he skulls a beer in seconds at the SCG in 2012 with plenty of followup WP:RS media coverage. Inherantly noteable I say! :D Timeshift (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As an interesting aside, "Bob Hawke and John Howard were in the stands - Labor man Hawke with the masses and Swami Army, Howard suited up in the Members Stand"[2]. Sounds like the 1987 election all over again ;) Timeshift (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The 1963 thing was a world record - 'nuff sed. He had many drinks after that, none of which were individually notable. Lots of people would have sculled beers at the cricket this week, so why is Hawke getting into the act worthy of article space? There's been lots of media coverage about it, but so what: you were against including Rudd's earwax thing despite it attracting massive media attention. So, media-worthy things are not necessarily encyclopedia-worthy things. His age 82 has nothing to do with it either, unless it's completely unheard of for an 82-year old man to scull a beer. Connect this single incident with his professed teetotaller status and you've got something worth including, but otherwise it's just a guy having a beer at the cricket. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Rudd previously set the world record for ear-wax eating and did his ear-wax eating endear him to the Australian ear-wax eating culture? Umm, no. Timeshift (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawke was a teetotaller during his term as Prime Minister. So he's apparently been enjoying drinking (hopefully in moderation) during the 20 years since he left the Lodge. This is just one more drink, which happened to be caught on camera, did the rounds of youtube, and was picked up by media outlets during what was a very slow news week. Do you think for a moment that if various people reported they saw him sculling a beer but nobody got him on camera, it would have been reported anywhere? Not likely, mate. So it's all about the fact that it's just another fleeting visual distraction for those whose lives are extraordinarily ordinary; it says precisely nothing about the notability of Bob Hawke. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How very WP:OR of you. Timeshift (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember Hawke announcing some 10yrs ago that he did have the occasional beer. He was therefore unlikely to have been truly alcoholic. For any reformed alcoholic, even a mouthful of beer would start the addiction all over again. A period of heavy drinking does not always cause alcoholism in every individual. OTH, some individuals may succumb to the grog only after a year or two of modest drinking.220.244.90.41 (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion Issues

I’m posting this to dispute a reversion of an edit of mine by Timeshift. I don't mind being reverted. I just can't see the point of this one. Compare sentence 1 (the reversion) to sentence 2 (my edit):

1) In the 2010 election campaign, Hawke leant considerable support to Julia Gillard in the election against Tony Abbott.

2) In the 2010 Federal election campaign, Hawke gave considerable support to Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her contest against federal opposition leader, Tony Abbott.

The reversion edit summary explains that Gillard did not contest the 2011 election against Tony Abbott. Rather, she contested the seat of Lalor. This is in a very narrow sense technically correct, but seems to me to be a pedantic and unnecessary point. If we applied the same logic we would have to argue, for example, that it is incorrect to say that Hawke defeated opposition leader Howard in the 1987 election because Hawke actually contested the election in his own seat of Wills. Sentence 1 itself is incorrect by the logic of the stated reason for the reversion: to say the 2010 election was ‘against’ Tony Abbott is to commit the same error.

Further, I don’t think it does any harm, in a web-based, internationally-read encyclopaedia, to identify people such as Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott in the text of the article by their formal positions.

The second part of my edit I think clearly replaces a poorly written sentence with an improvement. Compare edit 1 (the reversion) with edit 2(my edit):

1) In 2011 Hawke publicly supported NSW Premier Kristina Keneally in an election campaign, who was facing almost certain defeat to opposition leader Barry O'Farrell, describing her campaign as "gutsy".

2) In 2011, Hawke publicly supported the election campaign of NSW Premier Kristina Keneally, who was facing almost certain defeat by opposition leader Barry O'Farrell. He described her campaign as "gutsy".

Sentence 1, clumsily, seems to imply that the election campaign was facing almost certain defeat. ‘Defeat by’ is correct; ‘defeat to’ is not. Welham66 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I frankly don't see the difference between the first two, and have no preference, although I would point out that the second comma in the second one is ungrammatical. In fact, I wonder if we need to mention Abbott and Gillard at all - might it not be better to say that he supported the Labor campaign in 2010? In the second part of Welham66's edit, his/her version is clearly superior. Frickeg (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Fraser resigned as Liberal leader and departed practical political life two months later?

I am puzzled by the term "departed practical political life". Fraser seems to be quite active today, as a commentator and lobbyist. Is this not practical? Can someone explain this terminology for me please? Djapa Owen (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The wiki Malcolm Fraser page has "retired from politics altogether". I believed that not to be exact as was continued a practical interest in the nation's states of affairs. { If you like he and Hawke remained to take a partaking interest in the nation's affairs outside the practical and elected political life.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure of this use of "practical", perhaps "departed elected political life" might be more precise and accurate? "Practical seems quite vague to me. Any other opinions? Djapa Owen (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

GCL postnom

Please see Talk:John Howard#SSI revisited and its links for a query on whether Hawke and Whitlam are validly permitted to append GCL after their names. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

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) 05:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bob Hawke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121010223600/http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1963/1963repsvic.txt to http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1963/1963repsvic.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150312101646/http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/BHPML/speeches/Prime/policy.pdf to http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/bhpml/speeches/Prime/policy.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Allegations

There is sizable sourcing that Bob Hawke allegedly urged his daughter to remain silent about her rape by Bill Landeryou in order to get elected as Labor leader. Is there a reason why the previous addition of this on the page was deleted? WP:PUBLICFIGURE states that a biography page can cover it if it is well documented "even if it is negative". Catiline52 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a difficult area. There is no doubt the allegations have been made, but it's hard to know how much weight to give them. Haven't read them all, but the first source says that the accuser, one of Hawke's daughters, "was struggling with substance abuse issues at the time". If it had gone to court anywhere back near the time it happened, a typical lawyer would have destroyed the claimant's case on the basis of the drug usage. While obviously not a BLP issue, the allegations do slander two now deceased people, who have no opportunity to defend themselves. Unlike the media outlets reporting this, we don't have to publish sensational content to attract readers. I have no idea what actually happened, but I do feel quite uncomfortable with Wikipedia including these allegations. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hawke Government Privatisation

Under Economic Policy it said that Hawke Government "sold off the state-owned Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Aussat, Qantas and CSL Limited". This is almost entirely wrong. Part of the Commonwealth Bank was sold off in 1991 (the remaining bits were sold off in 1993 and 1996).Aussat was sold off in 1994, Qantas in 1993 and 1995 and CSL in 1994. Keating replaced Hawke in December 1991. So except for the first sell off of the Commonwealth Bank, the sell offs were done by Keating and Howard. I have edited the entry to say "sold off part of the state-owned Commonwealth Bank of Australia."

I do know proper English, HiLo48

HiLo48 - "OK. Not looking for a fight with someone who doesn't understand sourcing. But at least learn proper English if you're going to add this kind of trivial nonsense."

I do know proper English. English is the only language I speak.

That was not just insulting, it was offensive, even borderline racist.

I would like for you to stay away from me.

110.33.138.212 (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The vexing issue here is because HiLo48 did not like the following statement that I had written:

"Hawke therefore became the first Opposition Leader who never met Parliament."

Evidently he did not consider "never met Parliament" to be proper English.

I can assure everyone that is acceptable English speak as demonstrated here: https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Xe9tXvaVH5ydjLsP27iy0AE&q=%22never+met+Parliament%22&oq=%22never+met+Parliament%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1216.7224..7541...1.0..0.422.7280.3-21j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0j0i3j0i22i30j33i160.UUzuiBxr0Lk&ved=0ahUKEwi2uLLNj5zoAhWcDmMBHVucDBoQ4dUDCAg&uact=5

Eg. "Kim Campbell never met Parliament as [Canadian] prime minister" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.138.212 (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the thought might be phrased in a more conventional fashion, and HiLo might be a little more kind in his aspect? --Pete (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Never met Parliament"? Ain't heard it described that way, before. I would suggest "Never served in parliament as opposition leader", would make a better wording. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It might be archaic, or some veddy British usage, but it's not a phrase that rolls unhindered through the mind. The claim was untrue, in any case. The lack of any sourcimng was a hint that it was false. --Pete (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

This section is very short compared to say Gough Whithlam's. Hawke had a huge legacy. Epideme12 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hawke told Hewson he let Australia down by not being elected Prime Minister this can this be placed back in the article --Celco85Celco85 (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [[3]]

@Celco85: this section is about Hawke's legacy -- not Hewson's. Also, an opinion piece is not a reliable source. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)