Talk:H. V. Evatt

Untitled

I have removed the reference to the Venona transcripts because it will be meaningless and

Well, that's why we have links, a significant one of which you just deleted.

misleading to readers

Misleading? How so? The text you deleted stated that the security services at the time entertained a suspicion that Evatt might have been a Soviet agent. That is a fact. How is it misleading?

unfamiliar with the full story of the Petrov Affair, and the full story cannot be told in this article. This subject should be discussed in the Petrov Affair article.

Indeed, but it should also be discussed at VENONA project, which is a much bigger issue than just the Petrov affair.

It would be a different matter if Evatt had in fact been a Soviet agent, but he wasn't. Adam 10:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

or indeed if ASIO had a reasonably grounded suspicion that he might have been, which they did (as was stated in the text you just deleted.) Securiger 19:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Accusations and Suspicions

I came to Mr. Evatt's entry from the VENONA Project entry, and noticed a lack of reference to the subject. It seems that the writers of this article believe that Mr. Hyatt was innocent of any wrongdoing, and the suspicion of his secretary, Mr. Alan Dalziel, as a Soviet Agent is inconsequential. I think a link to the VENONA Project entry to balance the view of Mr Hyatt is not outrageous, since the article has a slightly sympathetic POV. - --Darth Kottaram 16:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, the stuff in the VENONA project entry about Evatt is absolute rubbish. I wouldn't give it a second though. Slac speak up! 21:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the stuff you block deleted at VENONA project was based on an ABC documentary. The documentary used both declassified VENONA material and interviews with senior ASIO officers from the time, and was widely acclaimed at the time. I have made some other comments at your talk page. Securiger 13:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is complete rubbish, then it should only be linked to, depending on it's notoriety in Australia. The JFK Assassination conspiracy theory, Princess Diana Murder conspircacy theory, etc. are all full of holes, inaccuracies, and logical fallacies. However, they are popular ideas, and are notable because of that. Dozens of of allegations, conspiracy theories, etc. don't make it to Wikipedia simply because very few people care. I do not know much about Australian popular culture, or Australian academic popular culture and whether it is a widely discussed topic. If it is not, then my supposition that the article has a slightly sympathetic POV is possibly wrong. --Darth Kottaram 05:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted this until a source is provided and assessed:

Declassification of VENONA project archives from July 1995 on revealed that forty years previously the security services had in fact determined that there was a KGB agent in Evatt's office. Although the agent was never identified, the information this agent was able to provide led the security services to suspect either Evatt himself or his private secretary Alan Dalziel.

Adam 06:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

OK now I have found my own source. As this transcript makes clear, the VENONA transcripts (even if we accept their reliability, which many do not) do not show that ASIO had any serious case against either Evatt or Dalziel. Adam 07:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Honours

Evatt was a Kings Counsel (KC). Is it appropriate to list that after his name in the main entry, or (if it's considered pertinent), would it just be mentioned in the text of the article? Mistertim 05:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wonder if the LLD here belongs earlier, in the discussion of Evatt's education. Because this is an LLD granted in recognition of submitted academic work (in this case, evidently, a dissertation), rather than an HonLLD, perhaps it's best not classified as an 'honour'. 71.83.199.95 04:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Its a bit rich for to describe me as lazy. What I added to the page is:

a) factual

b) is needed for a more rounded overview of HVE

c) HVE's rum rebellion book is considered definitive

So please put it back-edit it if you want. But please dont overlord wikipedia. Eric A. Warbuton 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Carr youve edited LLD to read LID. What do you mean? Can you fill us in? Eric A. Warbuton 05:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• When you cut and paste from a library catalogue without even noticing that the book titles have been cut off, and dump it into an article with no attempt to edit to conform to Wikipedia format, that is lazy.
• No history book is definitive, and certainly not one written by an amateur historian 50 years ago.
• I know this because I have a PhD (not a PHD) in Australian history. The Ll in LlB and LlD is a rather archaic abbreviation for legum as in "Legum Doctor." Adam 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is what you call oneupmanship.

I'm inclined to think this article should be moved to H.V. Evatt since that is what he was usually called. Adam 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that what you call it? Close, and has all the appearences of authenicity, but not good enough. "LL" is an abbreviation of the genitive plural legum (of laws).

"I know this because I have a PhD" !?!

Please keep displaying your lack of knowledge: it provides us, out here in Wikiland, with gratutious amusement in this sometimes grey world. At least HVE has been published.

With the actual volume in front of me I see that the publishers use the form 'LLB'Eric A. Warbuton 03:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well they are wrong, and so are you (as usual). The second "L" should be lower case. I see you have dodged the first two, and much more important, points (as usual). Adam 07:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Its only lower case when its singular. Uppercase 'L' when its plural ie. 'Laws' So the universities of Latrobe, Monash, Melbourne and Sydney are all wrong (to mention just a few-do you want more?) in the degrees they issue? So please read previous contrib carefully. Its OK, we all make egregious errors.Eric A. Warbuton 07:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess they have all succumbed to the age of illiteracy. Since lawyers don't have to learn Latin any more I suppose the older convention has dropped out of use, as Google seems to confirm (although it is not case-sensitive so I can't be sure). Anyway, this was a very minor point compared to my original complaint, about you dumping unedited library calatogue exerpts into this article, which you have yet to comment on. Adam 07:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Title of article

I am going to move this article to H.V. Evatt unless someone has some good objections. Having written a number of articles on the period in which he was around, I am getting tired of writing Dr [[Herbert Evatt|H.V. Evatt]], when he was absolutely never called or referred to as Herbert by anyone. Adam 05:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Art Benefactor

I am aware that Evatt donated an impressive collection of art to the Art Gallery of New South Wales but don't know the details. It would be good if this could be investigated or substantiated further and noted in the text.--Davrosjay 10:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Minister for external affairs under member for Barton title

I'm not good on infoboxes so I'm not sure what's wrong or how to fix it, but information of him as Minister for External affairs appears under the Member for Barton section of his infobox. I can't see how this has happened, and as I don't know how to fix it myself, I thought it best to bring it up here. Anoldtreeok (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Evatt and Atomic Energy

Triggered by a recent edit, I tried to establish exactly what "atomic energy" was chaired by Evatt. Looking through various webpages (of recent construction), Evatt was the chairman of the United Nationals Atomic Energy Commission or of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Which is correct? One, neither, both? I found this June 1946 newspaper article that does confirm he was chairman of the UN Atomic Energy Commission, but only for a month with the chairmanship after that on a rotating basis; Evatt was first because he was first alphabetically (nothing to do with his skills/knowledge/etc). And indeed one month later in this July 1946 newspaper article he is the retiring chairman of said committee. Meanwhile this document on the history of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission states it was established in 1952 and the 3 commissioners and chairman are listed and don't include Evatt. On this basis, I suggest we remove any mention of the AAEC and perhaps be a little more deprecating on his role at the UN commission, given the duration and reason for selection, perhaps not including it in the lede and being more fullsome as to the circumstances in the section on the UN. What do others think? Kerry (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Kerry. I agree wholeheartedly. His month as Chairman of the Commission was clearly a consequence of him being a key player in other fields within the fledgling UN, and nothing to do with expertise in the field. His achievements within the UN and in Australia were highly significant. Mentioning his one month chairmanship of the UN Atomic Energy Commission makes it seem that we are scratching around to find things to write about him. His one-month chairmanship was insignificant so I think it should be erased. I will do that. If someone else finds a source document that indicates his chairmanship was more significant than I have given credit, that source document can be used to provide a new paragraph in an appropriate place. Dolphin (t) 13:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on H. V. Evatt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111102014954/http://evatt.labor.net.au/ to http://evatt.labor.net.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Only Opposition Leader disliked by PM Menzies

Is it worth noting that of the four Opposition leaders countered by Prime Minister Menzies, Evatt was the only one disliked by him. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not worth noting if you don't have a reference for this claim, and I think the only suitable reference in this case would be a direct quote or statement from Menzies himself saying unequivocally that Evatt was the only opposition leader he disliked. --Canley (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not a claim it is a fact:

https://www.smh.com.au/culture/art-and-design/who-hated-robert-menzies-enough-to-take-a-knife-to-his-official-portrait-20220608-p5as52.html 49.3.72.79 (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Evatt with a pencil

There is this iconic picture of Evatt holding a pencil. https://www.naa.gov.au/students-and-teachers/learning-resources/learning-resource-themes/government-and-democracy/prime-ministers-and-politicians/portrait-deputy-prime-minister-dr-herbert-vere-evatt

Why did he do that and why hasn't this been included in this article? 49.3.72.79 (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Nickname

The original version of this article, back in 2003, included Evatt's nickname, by which he is almost universally referred to in media or current references. The article no longer includes this, even though many of the article sources use that name in their titles (eg. see Bibliography). I can see that the nickname was used in the lead-in for at least sixteen years, but I haven't followed all the history as to why the nickname was deleted. As a benchmark, Wiki articles on similar Australian leaders of his stature include their nicknames (cf. H. C. Coombs in the lead in, or Robert Menzies by direct explanation in the body of the article under Background). Rod mcinnes (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)