Talk:Chris Watson

---

Untitled

Chris Watson is more common. I would move. [1] --Jiang 07:06, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Infobox image

I did some work to fix up the infobox image, and someone removed it saying it was "grainier" and that there was "nothing wrong" with the previous image. Both statements are incorrect. The resolution of the cropped image is exactly the same of that of the previous image, you are simply able to see the grain of the image now, whereas before the contrast was so low that it was like a patina of dust had been laid over it. The old image also has unnecessary empty space at the top, which I cropped out, making for a typically sized head shot which is undoubtedly superior to what was there before. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility

I have read that Watson wasn't eligible to be an MP because he had never been naturalised as British subject. If this is true it should be mentioned in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's all true. Except that it wasn't known till a long time after his death. He was given his step-father Watson's surname, but he was led to believe this man was his natural father, and as far as he and everybody else was aware, he was a British subject because his supposed father was. This was completely accepted as fact at the time. Had the real facts been known, he would not have been eligible to stand for parliament, let alone be elected. He could still have become Prime Minister, because the Constitution imposes no qualifications of any kind on who can be appointed ministers - except that their appointments lapse if they do not become members of the parliament within 3 months, and he would still have been up the pole there.

So, he was considered eligible to be an MP because it was accepted that he was a British subject; that's all that really matters. The truth coming out years after the event does not have the effect of undoing his MPness or his PMness. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, federation parliamentarians did not need to be naturalised as a British subject to be eligible! Per gov.au ref, "Section 34 of the constitution required members to be ‘subjects of the Queen’. But at the time it was thought he was George Watson’s son, which made him a British subject. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald (23 April 1904) writing of his becoming prime minister said that ‘when a child, he removed with his British parents from South America to New Zealand’"! Chris Watson#Early life was actually very misleading and as such I have made corrections and expanded it... the actual facts throw reasonable doubt on Watson's paternal knowledge - I encourage all to have a quick read... fascinating! Timeshift (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

New South Wales Labor Party

Was the party known as Labour or Labor during this time. The references are vague, even with the mention of the ALP changing in 1912 it doesn't clarify if the NSWLP spelt their name without the 'u'. Ozdaren (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chris Watson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Error: "Watson is the only Australian Prime Minister not to have been born in either Australia or Great Britain." PM John Gorton (1968-1971) was born in New Zealand.203.129.60.42 (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 11:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, have updated the article to say Commonwealth country. Timeshift (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

ambiguous citations

The statements are not that unlikely, but multiple citations in the row at the end of a long paragraph is not good enough to count as the content being properly sources. It is completely unclear which information comes from which source.Irtapil (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Did Chris Watson support or oppose federation?

This article says that he opposed federation:

"He [Watson] and most party members opposed Federation on the grounds that the proposed constitution was undemocratic."

But the wiki article on the Australian Labor Party says he was a supporter:

"However, the first Labour leader and Prime Minister Chris Watson was a supporter of federation."

Which is it? I dunno. But we can't have contradictory statements about the same man in different articles.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)