Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Motivation

[edit]

Should we include the reasons that have been suggested for why the CIA would want to get rid of Whitlam? They are probably mentioned in some of the articles already used in the article. Here are some more that may help.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Burrobert (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to edit the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the article already mentioned Pine Gap.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Not sure how to resolve that. One mention relates to evidence for CIA involvement. The other relates to the motivation for CIA involvement. Are we allowed to mention it twice? Burrobert (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe put the reasons first as "Background".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine. What about this for background? Taken from the James Jesus Angleton page:

Australian journalist Brian Toohey claimed that Angleton considered then Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam a "serious threat" to the US and was concerned after the Commonwealth police raided ASIO headquarters in Melbourne in 1973 at the direction of Attorney General Lionel Murphy. In 1974, Angleton sought to instigate the removal of Whitlam from office by having CIA station chief in Canberra, John Walker, ask Peter Barbour, then head of ASIO, to make a false declaration that Whitlam had lied about the raid in Parliament. Barbour refused to make the statement.[1]

Burrobert (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have gone ahead and made some changes as discussed above and provided some structure. Should we mention that the Peter Edwards piece was published by the controversial ASPI?
Yes, I think so, for balance. And a justification for the article. If it's an "enduring conspiracy theory" it should be here.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Snow, Deborah (31 August 2019). "Tantalising secrets of Australia's intelligence world revealed". The Age. Retrieved 1 October 2019.

More from Brian Toohey on who knew or didn't know what about Pine Gap: Toohey, Brian (14 February 2024). "Untruths, the CIA, and Whitlam's dismissal". Pearls and Irritations. Retrieved 17 February 2024. Errantios (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What can we use for the article?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned a new contribution to or near to the topic by someone who has already been cited here, published in a place that I don't think has a very wide readership. I'm not in a position to judge whether it contains anything useful here—a rather specialised task. If nobody finds anything useful in it, no harm will have been done. Errantios (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description as a conspiracy theory

[edit]

There has been some interest in referring to the alleged CIA involvement in The Dismissal as a "conspiracy theory". The long standing description has been an "allegation" which is also in the title of the article. The policy that is relevant in this situation is WP:STATUSQUO which states:

"To eliminate the risk of an edit war, do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed".

There are sources which use the term "conspiracy theory", some of which were added by the disputing editor. It may therefore be appropriate to mention that the allegation has sometimes been referred to as a conspiracy theory. The bulk of the references in the article use the term "allegation" or say something like "it has been alleged that the CIA was involved". I have asked the disputing editor to start a talk page discussion about the description and suggested it may be appropriate to add a tag against the disputed term while a discussion is on-going. Burrobert (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Burrobert are you saying it's not a conspiracy theory? ITBF (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I consider it a conspiracy theory is irrelevant. Burrobert (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you remove the sourced content stating it is a conspiracy theory? ITBF (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My edit notes say "The long-standing description is "allegation". If you want to change that you will need to seek consensus by starting a discussion on the talk-page. You may want to add a "disputed" tag against the content while the discussion is progressing". When your change was reverted a second time, the reverting editor said "subject to discussion - see Talk, 12 Nov 2024" (i.e. the current talk section). I provided more information when I started this discussion. Burrobert (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's either have that discussion, in a new section, or agree to leave "alleged" alone. Errantios (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" section

[edit]

I think it's reasonable from an abundance of caution to use the term "alleged", but I'm just curious -- there is an article, for instance, United States involvement in regime change which has evidence of a very similar nature to that which I've cited in this article but does not have the "alleged" prefix? Is there guidance on how this is applied? WobInDisguise (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article doesn't mention Australia. Each case has to be considered for itself. Errantios (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood my point. There are other articles about CIA involvement in other countries which do not have the "Alleged" prefix, which have a similar weight of evidence. If they do not have an "alleged" prefix, what criteria is it that justifies them not having the prefix, and that justifies this article having one? WobInDisguise (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors appear to have considered those cases to be proved, on general criteria. The debate here has employed general criteria and there has not been a consensus of proof. Errantios (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fair enough, there's plenty more to add to the article :) WobInDisguise (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 November 2024

[edit]

Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal → CIA involvement in the Whitlam dismissal – As per several other articles including CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking and the "CIA activities in" series. The involvement of the CIA is well documented as comprehensively detailed in the article including from CIA sources such as Christopher Boyce, these are not "allegations". GeebaKhap (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connection is one thing; involvement in a particular action is another. Errantios (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having and maintaining supportive contacts with key actors in the dismissal is a form of involvement. Skornezy (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the CIA were "key actors in the dismissal" is the point needing to be proved. Errantios (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's whether there was "involvement in the Whitlam dismissal"; Governor-General Kerr maintained substantial contact with the CIA and several reliable sources have detailed how these connections facilitated Prime Minister Whitlam's dismissal. The CIA's long-standing supportive relationship with the man who dismissed the Prime Minister is, at the very least, indirect involvement. Skornezy (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alleged_CIA_involvement_in_the_Whitlam_dismissal&oldid=1257086482"