Talk:John Howard/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 10

This talk page really needed it, so I have made /Archive 10. Sorry I didn't go through and copy across more recent chatter, but I am sure the relevant editors will be more than happy to reiterate their views. --Surturz (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think there was any outstanding business. Anyone who wants can go check the archive. --Pete (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. The discussions have not been inactive for a month, and there is a current RfC and poll to boot. Nice try however. Timeshift (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• This talk page is so big it is very difficult. Archive 11 started with a resolved issue but can be added to --Matilda ^talk 02:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. For some reason I have trouble editing WP articles once they hit a certain size, and this talk page has hit it. I can only edit the smaller sections at the moment :-P --Surturz (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved much chatter to /Archive 11. This page still needs more culling. I think it should be rationalised into the following headings: 1) Obama 1a) RfC 1b) RfM 1c) Compromise wording 2)POV Tag removal 3)Restructure --Surturz (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I don't think the Obama discussion should be rationalised while it's still in process and ongoing.Lester 07:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I have provided links to the archived content. I can see your point, but I really don't think there is much point leaving it in, because there was so much of it (100's of KB) that 1) any new editor joining the discussion is unlikely to read it all, 2) editors already involved in the discussion won't want to re-read it, and can go to the archive if they want to check up on a point, and 3) There was a fair bit of flaming going on from all parties that really isn't helpful now that civility has been restored. I would suggest quoting relevant sections from the archive if needed. --Surturz (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Concur with Surturz - note at Help:Archiving a talk page : Bulky talk pages may be difficult to navigate and may contain obsolete discussion. Large talk pages could be a burden for users with slow Internet connections and slow computers - some have already found that out at this page.--Matilda ^talk 07:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi Page protection

I've requested semi page protection due to the on going vandalism from anon ip's. Bidgee (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been semi protected. Bidgee (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Stalemate

I don't see any reasonable way forward to add new content to the article, due to the fact (as we've seen in recent times) that some editors will launch into an edit war to get their way with the content, rather than using the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes. It diminishes the incentive to add content, when we have easier criteria for inclusion if the content will make Howard appear glorious, and some editors wish to impose tougher criteria to prevent content being added that doesn't improve Howard's image. I think this is an issue that needs to be resolved before the article restructure. The edit wars are the most destructive influence on this article. Lester 21:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful about the metaphors we use. 'Stalemate' suggests we are engaged in a 'war' rather than a process of negotiation. It takes two to have an edit war, so its unfair to suggest that its one-sided. Also, while some items of content are highly contested, others seem to have been added without too much fuss, people are tweaking them as they go along etc. We have two main processes at work here: an attempt to restructure (and split) the article, which will have major effects on content, and attempts to deal with specific items of content prior to the restructure. It seems to be the latter which are the cause of most of the anguish, which is hardly surprising, because the context for their inclusion (ie. article structure) is so poor at present. We have tried formal dispute resolution processes and they failed, yet the article remains editable. Also, it has to be remembered that text will be read differently by different people - nothing has only one meaning. See the discussion about the meaning of 'higher immigration' above. I suggest we can be more optimistic. Eyedubya (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it is reasonable to be somewhat optimistic about this article, for reasons similar to those as stated above by User:Eyedubya. I would say not a stalemate, some new content is being added, with some difficulty though, due to the article probably needs restructuring. --

Splitting the article in two makes particular items of content easier to contextualise and easier to deal with, it is hoped. --

Splitting the article in two makes the question of the POV tag moot. I favour removing it, not that it really matters. There will be POV disputes forever and a day over every article concerning a politician, the problems with this article seem no more pronounced than with other equivalent articles, given that John Howard was Prime Minister for a long time. The tag may or may not attract thoughtful editors to contribute, but it is ugly. --NewbyG (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• The second article exists (again) - I have recreated from deletion ( a self-nom prod due to lack of interest) the article Premiership of John Howard just in case you have missed the addition to the thread above. I don't think we are in a staleamte, i think we are moving forward. I see no edit warring on the article page and sensible discussion on this page. --Matilda ^talk 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think it should be at Prime ministership of John Howard as Premier is a state office and Premiership is a state term rather than the federal term. Its basically what I suggested earlier about having an article to cover the period as Prime Minister. Gnangarra 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Prime ministership is so clumsy and Blair has premiership (but UK doesn't have state premiers). I will move it --Matilda ^talk 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Off line I’ve actually been writing this new article on and off for the last week. I tend however tentatively call it “The Howard Government”, and have used this phrase throughout. What do people think?

I’d like to continue working on it tonight. I note that it should fit nicely into Matilda’s outline, and my work is essentially a copy edited version of the 1996 to 2007 section of this article. My work has confirmed our suspicions that so much of the trivial info in JH would be much better placed under “Howard Government”. --Merbabu (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added some stuff from this article just to get it started as there has been one whinge it was an empty article. I look forward to edits by Merbabu and others Matilda ^talk 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the intention was to create a daughter article of his biography rather than an overview article about the government in general. Gnangarra 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Over the last few months there has been discussion (see this page and its archives) about separating out what can be attributed to the “Howard Government” and what was particularly pertinent to a biography on a (now former) political leader. Ie, a “daughter” article to JH simply differs by level of detail in much the same way a lead and main body differ, whereas the “Howard Govt” article is a distinctly different – albeit related – scope. This covers the nitty gritty detail of the 1996-2007 period, and JH can (1) initially be trimmed of these details in 96-2007, and then (2) be subject to a major academic re-write much like Orderinchaos is promising which will hopefully remove the unplanned list of tidbits we have now. --Merbabu (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is that this isnt a daughter article of the biography but rather an overview article of the government as such it doesnt resolve the content issues here. So what do to fix the issue of this article? Gnangarra 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• (EC for me this time!)I see it as a parallel article - the Blair example is I guess what I am aiming for. I think moving some of the issues into the article about the government will allow the events to be seen more objectively and will de-escalate content issues here. --Matilda ^talk 02:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To address the content concerns here, this article needs a daughter article to cover the period of John Howard's life when he was Prime Minister not an article about the governement. Gnangarra 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It should be a "Howard Government" article, not a daughter article of this one. I think it was User:Matilda (talking about immigration) that wanted to distinguish between Howard's personal achievements and his government's achievements. An article about what Howard did as PM should simply be included in this article. --Surturz (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be looking at all this in due course - from the middle of exams is never a nice place, but I think a rebuild of the article from zero would satisfy the objections of all parties in this. I also agree with the need for a separation between the Howard government and the person Howard - this is a biography about an influential figure, not a documentation of the political period (although it has tended to become one). Orderinchaos 09:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the need to split the John Howard article with a Howard Government article. Howard is notable for his politics, and not much else. You can't separate Howard the man and Howard the politics. I think it's better to have a single main encompassing article (as we already have), with multiple sub-articles/daughter articles to deal with specialist aspects of the main article (eg Economy, or whatever). The main article would have the overview. Maybe the Person/Politics split would work better for a figure like Peter Garrett who had a life before he entered politics.Lester 09:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its best to see what the restructure looks like first before attempting to pass judgement on it. The main objective is to sort out the BLP. The article on 'The Howard Government' will either serve as a model for other articles of the same ilk, or it will wither on the vine as its declining relevance becomes apparent, or its content will get distributed among various sub-articles as seen fit. The current process seems to have generated a certain amount of energy and the results will be interesting to see. Let's allow them to happen. Eyedubya (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a philosophical divide - there is the man John Howard and there is the government he was generally in charge of - note I say generally, as the "Howard government" did a lot of things that Howard himself didn't necessarily (our PMs are not presidents, no matter how much noise they make in that direction). Ultimately I'd like to see both as articles which our project can be justly proud of. Where the two meet, there'll likely be some of each in the other, but it's a case of "discuss what is relevant then move on", rather than making the article about something it shouldn't be. Orderinchaos 10:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK an arbitrary break then - can we not confuse the topics please

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.

If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force it. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both. It's a problem it seems Shot info (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on contributors rather than the contributions, yet again, are unhelpful. Without pursading people? And you base that on what, the poll that was done? Oh, I was in the majority. Nevermind. I notice the poll keeps being archived, can't say I blame those in the minority, if I was in the minority I wouldn't want it there glaring at me either telling me that if I want it, i've got some debating to do. But that's not me :-) And here's an objective point of view in regards to commenting on contributors - 13 uses of the word 'you(r)' is quite a lot... Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean "Your comments on contributors, who are commenting on the "mysterious editors" rather than the contributions, yet again, are unhelpful"? No, O of course not. Shot info (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Like photos, lol at the header edit summary, it wasn't just me that noted comments over the contributor rather than contributions, I didn't re-thread anything. I think that also suffices as a reply to the above. Have a nice day. Timeshift (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Naturally :-) Shot info (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tangential discussion on editwarring

• In response to comments by Lester at 4.40 5 June UTC : It seems that reasoned debate for or against the inclusion or deletion of any information is pointless, as the matter inevitably gets decided by edit waring, which is a completely unacceptable situation. I'm fed up with the censorship that's been going on, and rogue editors who would prefer to fight it out in a deletion war, like dogs over a scrap of meat, than to put it through the proper community process to gain consensus. in thread above pagge refactored by Matilda ^talk 06:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) who left the commetns in place in the subject matter discussion

It would help if Lester stopped refering to his failure and inability to attempt to gain consensus as "censorship" with "rogue editors" and "deletion war" blah, blah. He should know by know it's all a big conspiracy. Lester it's obvious you don't like it here, so rather than continue to hurt your fingers by typing about why you don't like the rules, why don't you edit elsewhere? Shot info (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're gonna reply like that then don't. Minutes later, another thread reduced to a slanging match. It's no wonder everyone's giving up on this article. Timeshift (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly why Lester just had to discuss the contibutor(s) that disagrees with his POV rather than the contribution. Nice to see that you have no problems with that. And you all wonder why you cannot achieve consensus? Shot info (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the (s). Because it shows that his comments vented frustration with the situation. You directly attacked an editor. But meh, if you can't distinguish that, then your last line back at you. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would not refer to the recent delete wars as playing by "the rules" of Wikipedia. Lester 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is why you have failed to achieve consensus per "the rules". Shot info (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, when I said that content gets decided by edit waring, I was not referring to user:Matilda, who messaged me after mistakenly thinking I was accusing him of being the edit warrior, which I wasn't. The edit wariors already know who they are. Lester 05:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to be honest about things Lester as all can be seen above is you raging against mysterious unnamed editors - to the point that editors like Matilda are offended by your aimless sprays. Try some consensus seeking but alas, you seem to have a problem with achieving that very aim. Lester, you are the very model of the tendentious editor. Have a read of the policy so as to learn "how not to be accused of it." Shot info (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To refer to the practice of edit waring as a means to remove content that someone doesn't like, need not be considered offensive to any editor who does not partake. However, as an issue that plagues this article, and any other article with content that relates to John Howard, then it needs to be discussed. Lester 05:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Learn "how not to be accused of it"Shot info (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What a waste of time that was. No wonder nothing is achieved when people are at others throats. Timeshift (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet here you are. Shot info (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Howard criticism of Obama

This issue has been the subject of a RfC (Request for comment) and RfM (Request for Mediation), the results of which can be seen at /Archive 11. The result of the RfM was DENIED. --Surturz (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise #7

This is my proposed text:

A particularly notable feature of John Howard's period in office was his close relationship with United States president George W. Bush[98] In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas, during which time Bush described him as "a man of steel."[99] The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror".[98] In February 2007, referring to the US presidential contest, Howard claimed that Democratic nomination candidate Barack Obama's stance on the war would encourage terrorism in Iraq.

By removing the paragraph break using "stance on the war" it ties in to the prior sentence (which defines 'the war on terror'), thus getting rid of the parenthetical comment. Howard's comment was an "If I were..." not a direct encouragement for Al Qaeda to pray. How's this? --Surturz (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The MoS nickname is a reference to Superman. Maybe a link should be inserted. (previous unsigned comment by EyeDubya) Eyedubya (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I get the reference, you get the reference, but I wonder if GWB did (lol). Is GWB a reader of comics? --Surturz (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, up to a point. The references can give readers the full story. However, that's three sentences on the significant Bush/Howard relationship and one on the insignificant Obama/Howard tiff. I think Obama is being given far too much WP:WEIGHT when you compare the two relationships directly. Of course, I'm thinking of the real world when I say this. Here in wikispace, things are different and truthiness is what we make it. --Pete (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of looking at it. So, if we removed the 25% of the current content (i.e. the line about Howard's comments on Bush's opponents), would we be more or less informed overall about the topic of Howard's relationship with Bush? This kind of content analysis suggests we'd be less informed. Thus, the issue is not the relevance of the material about Howard's comments on Bush's opponents, but whether or not the current text adequately covers the nature of Howard's relationship with Bush in sufficient breadth. Removing 25% won't help us here, because then we only have 75% of a truncated story. Adding 100% more text (another 4 lines) will reduce the 'Obama' quotient to a mere 12.5% - is that sufficient? I can't say myself, but what this analysis suggests very strongly is that the section on John Howard's relationship with George Bush needs additional material. Maybe someone with better (or rather, more concerted) research skills than I could find some sources for, say, some sentences about John Howard's son going to work for George Bush's election campaign team? That'd be worth a line or two (maybe its already buried in the article somewhere, in which case, it needs to move). Perhaps there is room for some quotes from Howard about his views on Bush? In any event, I agree with SkyRing's point that the current offering here is a little limited in its scope and thus the material on Howard's comments about Bush's opponents does assume perhaps slightly greater prominence than it would in a more rounded coverage of this topic. Its not that Howard's assertion that The Democrats are the terrorists party of choice is insignicant, more that its siginificance is hard to understand without additional information about Howard's admiration for Bush.Eyedubya (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I do not support the inclusion of Obama per this wording. I do not support the remark being added to the Bush relationship. Bush was in power for 7 years of Howard's term. The two were close for that period. A snide remark by Howard with reference to a presidential candidate is indeed an undue weighting. It probably would have had more significance in my mind if Obama had been competing against Bush - but he isn't - he is not an opponent of Bush. --Matilda ^talk 03:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • But would you tolerate the inclusion of the proposed wording? If not, what would your suggested compromise be? --Surturz (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The relevance of the Obama content has been firmly established by the large volume of references and commentary supplied earlier in this discussion. All the editorials and commentary indicated both the relevance, and the unusualness of Howard's attack, and the significance of an angered presidential candidate by Obama's terse reply. Yes, Obama angrily criticised Howard's Iraq strategy, but that's a policy that has received both criticism and praise. For example, Bush praised Howard as a "man of steel" because of that same Iraq policy. It's a matter of having both sides of the equation. Howard's criticism was significant. The fact that Howard took risks by involving himself in US politics is significant and unprecedented. Obama's angry response is significant. I think a relevant excerpt of Howard's quote needs to be included, as well as Obama's response.-Lester 06:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• In answer to Surturz - no I would not tolerate the revised wording. I have no suggested compromise. I supported mediation - I am interested to hear of an alternate process to nut out a compromise. I disagree strongly with Lester that the relevance of the Obama event has been established. I would only be statisfied if it was of such importance that it was similarly included inteh Obama article - ie it was deemed of significancd to his campaign. I can't think it was or is. Nor do I think it is of anything but undue weight and therefore breaching WP:NPOV. Please show me a reliable source where a priminet adherent makes mention of the incident in 2008 and I will change my mind. I don't think Howard's remark was addressed to the US political arena, it was a domestic play (that is my conclusion) and even in the domestic political scheme of things, except on this page, it has no prominence.--Matilda ^talk 07:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matilda. These links were listed earlier in the discussion, but The Age in March 2008 and The Washington Post in April 2008 carried brief editorial mentions of the event. It shows the issue still has currency, is remembered, and occasionally gets a mention in the press to this day.Lester 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'd like to remind all concerned of Howard's letter to Indonesia regarding the government of East Timor (here is a useful reference). This is without a doubt a much more significant interference by Howard in the government of another country that actually lead to loss of life and the establishment of a new government. In comparison, the Obama incident looks like very small beer. --Surturz (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) Neither of those mentions is of weight - they are passing opinion pieces. Are you going to suggest that Bush would pass on the "man of steel" moniker to Rudd on the basis of the Washington Post mention? This is trivia and the mentions (no more than that) do not make it any the less trivial. --Matilda ^talk 07:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I put the links there in response to your remark in the preceding paragraph: "show me a reliable source where a priminet adherent makes mention of the incident in 2008 and I will change my mind." Over a year after the event there is less chance of an indepth commentary, but the sources were major (ie Washington Post etc), and most other aspects about Howard don't keep popping up in recent editorials like those. I think that if we use the criteria of long and indepth commentary, we should then apply that to the entire Howard article, and then go though it deleting all facts that don't have recent commentary of an extensive nature. We apply that to everything, or apply it to none. Regards, Lester 09:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:RS However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. - the pieces you cited did not meet the criteria for WP:RS--Matilda ^talk 10:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama/Howard in today's news

03 June, 2008: Today's editorial in The Age (use your browser to word-search for 'Obama'. I think that fairly and squarely answers critics who say the Obama incident didn't get on-going coverage.-Lester 09:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another opinion piece and hence again I quote WP:RS However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Stop using Opinion pieces for citations and find a cite - current that shows this trivial incident still has weight or is of some significance.--Matilda ^talk 10:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Matilda, I'm not sure I follow your line of argument. A few posts earlier, you asked for a prominent 2008 source that mentions the incident. I think the main editorial in The Age newspaper in Melbourne from this very day (Melbourne's major broadsheet newspaper) is a reliable enough source for the purposes of demonstrating to you that the article still has currency, a year and a half after the incident. Other citations from 2007 were used to reference the facts in the article. Lester 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the Age is The former prime minister, John Howard, has acknowledged frankly that the desire to assure Washington of Australia's loyalty was a key part, if not the whole, of his reason for taking part in the invasion of Iraq, and of Afghanistan before it. Yet, as the Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama once noted in a verbal joust with Mr Howard over policy in Iraq, that pledge of support was made in the most minimal terms. - "verbal joust" - Howard had many verbal jousts and we aren't going to metnion them all are we? This mention has a very different character to the text you are trying to insert. Matilda ^talk 07:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama/Howard: Criteria for inclusion

There are some who argue for 'ongoing coverage in the media' as a criterion; There are others who argue that its about symmetry - if its not in the Obama article, then it shouldn't be in the Howard article. If we applied the former consistently for every aspect of every BLP, then all BLPs would be very short. If we applied the latter consistently across all areas of every BLP, then they'd all be ridiculously long. Clearly, neither of these criteria are actually relevant to issues of content in a BLP. The criterion that we're really arguing about is relevance to the substance of any particular BLP - i.e. its purely about content that is notable, verifiable, etc. in relation to each particular BLP. And the criteria for such would be on the basis of content that makes one individual distinguishable from another against the remainder of humanity who are otherwise non-notable. Thus, in this, and every other instance within John Howard's article, the issue is this: "Of what relevance is this piece of content to the distinctive aspects of John Howard's character, personality, modus operandi, style, beliefs, politics, personal philosophy, charisma, success (or for that matter, failure) etc etc." These issues do not have much to do with whether the media is still gossiping about them a year or twenty after the event. Nor do they have much to do with whether or not items that are meaningful in John Howard's life are also mentioned in the BLP of someone else's life with which John Howard's life may be linked in some way. For example, there is a section in the John Howard article titled "Relationship with George Bush". It was previously called "US Relations" or somesuch. There is no such section to mirror this in the article on George W. Bush, nor is there anything within the George Bush article about Howard's visit to Bush's ranch, or the bestowing of the title "Man of Steel". However, no-one has argued that this piece of content should be removed because it is no longer mentioned in the media, nor have they called for its exclusion on the grounds that it lacks the required symmetry. And yet, the piece of text that is immediately adjacent to this very content is the subject of an ongoing call for its exclusion on these grounds. Surely, surely, its time for this canard to be recognised for what it is and can we all please move on!Eyedubya (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ongoing coverage in the media is not met by mentions in the odd Opinion piece as per my comments above on WP:RS. While symmetry may not be matched on Howard's relationship with Bush I can't think there is any dispute that the relationship was of great significance to Howard. If there is happy to debate that point - separately. There is debate that the relationship with Obama was of any significance to Howard or to Obama. As for If we applied the former consistently for every aspect of every BLP, then all BLPs would be very short - we have a guideline for not raising that debating point - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Matilda ^talk 10:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • With all due respect, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is really about whether or not we need an article on John Howard, not whether or not John Howard's accusations about other politicians are notable enough for inclusion within an article about John Howard. I think you've missed the point. I'm saying that the issue is not one that can be solved by comparison with other articles, either on the basis of similarity or ongoing newsworthiness. I'm saying that this issue, and this kind of issue in relation to BLPs can only be dealt with in the context of whatever it is about a particular person that makes anything they do or say worth including. John Howard has a page because he is a notable politician, not a notable cricket player, or even, a notable cricket commentator. Thus, Howard's many pronouncements on cricket are less notable than his pronouncements on other politicians. Likewise, then pronouncements of cricketers on politicians are not generally notable. While Howard's obsession with cricket and his admiration for Donald Bradman may indeed be worthy of a mention somewhere in Howard's article (and personally, I'd be fine if someone wanted to add that sort of thing in there), it seems less obviously relevant to the kind of things that distinguish Howard as a politician. So, to recap, Howard is a politician, and he is a politician for whom the War on Terror was a matter of his convictions as well as his special relationship with other politicians, notably, George Bush. Thus, when Howard makes assertions about George Bush's political opponents in relation to the War on Terror, it would seem that such assertions are not only noteworthy, but part of what makes Howard who he is politically - and such material is germane to a biographical article about him in the same way that the story about his sleepover at Bush's ranch is important to understanding who Howard is. Eyedubya (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Having reviewed the related posts above, perhaps a way through this one is to move the item about Howard's remarks linking Democrats, Obama and Terrorists in Iraq to a section on the subject of the war on terror, or on the Iraq war. Maybe. Eyedubya (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make a point.

Obama to be friend to Australia: Rudd, 5 June 2008 - last three paragraphs:

Last year, former prime minister John Howard said terrorists would be happy if Senator Obama won.

Mr Rudd said that remark had been unfortunate.

"I'm a bit disappointed that my predecessor Mr Howard could have described the great Democratic party as somehow representing the interests of al-Qaeda," he said.

Isn't it funny that for something with such little relevance, it continues to this day to be brought up by the media? Fascinating. Timeshift (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Its called political opposition - listen to Parliament and you will hear constant references to what the other side did while they were in power - for example in today's deabte on Fuel Watch. It is Hansard and therefore a reliable source but thousands of words later it doesn't make government comments about the others anything other than trivial and of a point scoring nature. This is trivial and rather demeaning to Rudd who brought it up. --Matilda ^talk 04:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to parliament. I'm referring to a news article. Thankyou, come again. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The link Timeshift provided is from The Sydney Morning Herald. Just for balance, a similar article was also published in the Murdoch press here. It seems that reasoned debate for or against the inclusion or deletion of any information is pointless, as the matter inevitably gets decided by edit waring, which is a completely unacceptable situation. I'm fed up with the censorship that's been going on, and rogue editors who would prefer to fight it out in a deletion war, like dogs over a scrap of meat, than to put it through the proper community process to gain consensus. Lester 04:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Timeshift9's query You're referring to parliament. I'm referring to a news article. Thankyou, come again. Apologies for being a little cryptic. I was suggesting that the matter was merely one of political debate. Political debate can be referenced by various reliable sources - Hansard being obvious but in this case I think the SMH is giving Rudd airplay and I was thereby inferring that the article is no more than if Rudd had spoken in parliament. I can see that the reference is being raised again and again - ie Lester has raised a couple of Opinion pieces before and they weren't quoting Rudd. With Obama having won the nomination for Democrat candidate and Rudd managing successfully to raise it, this trivial issue may not go away. I still think that in the scope of an article it is not important but ... if it isn't going to go away. For a comparable example I recall the debate over remarks Joan Sutherland of a racist nature. These remarks were in a speech she delivered and their inclusion was debated at Talk:Joan Sutherland#Controversy over racist remarks. The thing that gave those remarks a lasting nature was the length of time that they remained as a topic of conversation with Dame Joan - not to her pleasure. Matilda ^talk 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if i'm missing the glaring obviousness but how does this have to do with noteability for this article, where JH as PM labelled Obama, and the US dems, as the terrorist party of choice (and disregarding paraphrasing, they were the exact words), with the media still raising it to this day in the news? Timeshift (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Was it ever proved that Al Qaeda did, in fact, pray for an Obama victory? --Surturz (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with anything. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict and Surturz I find your comment not constructive or even funny) I maintain that this incident is trivial and should not be included. Others feel differently. I have noted a similar debate in another article on a prominent Australian. The controversial remarks were included because of the longevity of reference to them despite their triviality when it came to the subject - ie she was an opera singer and so racism is hardly germane. So perhaps notability is in part established by longevity. What I am still concerned about is whether the longevity is manufactured by the Rudd government (ie the opposition to Howard) or whether it is genuine. --Matilda ^talk 06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An opera singer being racist? Does opera and racism cross paths naturally? No. Does being PM and bagging one of two major parties with your closest ally cross paths naturally? That doesn't even need answering. One is of direct relevance to their job and one isn't. No stars for guessing which is which. Is the opera singer of any great noteability? Does this opera singer hold any authoritative position to speak on said issue? Well here we have the PM of our country (at the time) saying the terrorists pray for an Obama/Dem victory - that is, one of two options of government, in a place where Howard so staunchly calls them our ally. If you cant distinguish the difference, well... Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dame Joan was a prominent Australian - she made those remarks as a prominent Australian and the remarks were read in that context. The context I think for Howard that is as a leader he should not have been commenting on the affairs of another country. What concerns me about this is there are other times he similarly interfered I think - back in the bowels of the talk page which I can't find becuase too many editors are naiggling on about edit warring and tendentious editing instead of adding usefully to the debate.--Matilda ^talk 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You just said it yourself - "Dame Joan was a prominent Australian - she made those remarks as a prominent Australian and the remarks were read in that context. The context I think for Howard that is as a leader he should not have been commenting on the affairs of another country." So Dame Joan has no authority to speak on racism, either through the connection of her job to the issue, or how much she is listened to in the community and what respect she is held in (who is she?). Meanwhile, PM Howard spoke on behalf of the country, and has complete authority to make comments relevant to international relations, and everyone knows who the current and former PM is (being a PM and all) and is, like him or not, as the PM most people will at least hear what he has to say, digest it, and make their own judgement on them, and the issue. Bottom line, the issue is relevant to his job, it is not to hers, he is known by everyone and is gets heard by his supporters and detractors and some inbetween, and as for her i've never heard of her before today, and that would even go for the most famous opera performer because it goes back to the first point that opera and racism have no natural connection. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Compromise (or lack thereof) #8

This is my proposed text:

A particularly notable feature of John Howard's period in office was his close relationship with United States president George W. Bush[98] In May, 2003, Howard made an overnight stay at Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch in Texas, during which time Bush described him as "a man of steel."[99] The two shared a common ideology on many issues, most visibly in their approach to the "War on Terror".[98] In February 2007, referring to the US presidential contest, Howard claimed that Democratic nomination candidate Barack Obama's stance on the war would encourage terrorism in Iraq.

Yes, this is the same as compromise #7. I will tolerate this version, I believe Skyring will too (provided there is also more content added to dilute it). Reminder: we are setting the bar very low here, we want text that everyone will TOLERATE. Formulating text that everyone is HAPPY with is impossible The last remaining holdout as far as I am aware is User:Matilda, who still insists that the Obama stuff should not be in the article at all. (Quick note - if User:Lester wants the 'Man of Steel' quote removed, I have no problem with that) --Surturz (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• No longer holding out per my evolution of thought elsewhere on this page when thinking about Dame Joan. Injudicious remarks that are brought up more than a year after the event and multiple times are worthy of inclusion. I would prefer that there was a paragraph break. I think the Bush relationship is far more important and deserves a para on its own. I think the Obama remarks could either be read as support for Bush - in which case text needs to be added to convey that and of course supported by a cite as per WP:NOR. Alternatively the Obama incident could be read as Howard's propensity to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and I think there is some Indonesian examples that can be added too to give these context (again supported by refs).--Matilda ^talk 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion (re:Edit Wars)

I would like all editors to stop using the phrase "Edit War". Wars need to be declared. Henceforth they are to be known as "Edit Police Actions" :-) --Surturz (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Authorized use of edit"? :-) Shot info (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Could we actually not talk about conduct - the conduct to my mind is fine. I propose to refactor this page (probably not til tomorrow) to archive all comments about conduct and let us stick to discussing the article content. Oh and please don't use this page to remind others of how to behave (eg referring to WP:TE do that on the editor's own talk page if you must. ( actually I suggest you don't - just concentrate on the content issues )! --Matilda ^talk 07:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The conduct issues surrounding this article aren't exactly abated by occasionally sniping at the other side. I think refactoring the sections which don't have any end outcome in sight is a reasonable solution. Orderinchaos 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion sections are being archived ("refactored") less than 12 hours since the last discussion post. I think that's too short. Also, the fragmented pieces of a discussion will be separated in the archive. Lester 20:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion fragments had nothing to do with the article topic. I don't think the archive is unreadable - points can be found if necessary. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise (and admit I was wrong and apologise) if you can find any item which I have archived this morning that was directly related to the article subject and which had yet to be resolved. Matilda ^talk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys I was just trying to lighten the mood by making a joke! Conduct at the moment is fine --Surturz (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous post (above) that behaviour has been "fine". Recent conduct surrounding this article, and articles related to John Howard's policies, has not been fine at all. To generalise, some editors feel it is fine to resolve content disputes by deleting newly added and referenced content seconds after it was added. This modus operandi has been long been used as an alternative to the standard Wikipedia methods of resolving content disputes, such as taking the advice of Requests for Comment and/or engaging in Requests for Mediation. I'd like to see a pledge by those who use the "quick, repetitive continuous delete" method of dealing with content to not do so in future. In addition, incivility that singles out individual editors for harassment has continued in recent days. It's possible to discuss methods that will improve general behaviour or edit wars without the need for picking on individuals. I'd also like to ask those who have previously engaged in that sort of behaviour to pledge not to do so in future.-Lester 00:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to request that people chill out, go a bit slower on the talk page just as they need to go slower on the revert button, stop starting new sections, and make their comments short so (no-one reads long responses), and wake up and realise that no-one is going to get their way completely, nor will this thing be “fixed” today.

It gets back to earlier requests to diffuse issues, not escalate. Let’s just chill. --Merbabu (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My intention was to call people to voluntarily agree to end the incivility, wars, etc. But in hindsight, my post was mistaken, in that it had little chance of solving anything. Thanks, Lester 02:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I trust neutral parties like Merbabu, Matilda and others on this one. One point I will make - if you (meaning any party to this debate) see someone you disagree with on a talk page saying something you disagree with, a reply is not always warranted. Easiest approach is to think "if I reply, does this actually add anything?" Sometimes one can develop a need to reply to things one disagrees with for the reason that one thinks they are fallacies that need combatting, and that there is a neutral public out there needing to be convinced and if this comment's potential distorting effect isn't squashed, the other contribution might stand and the debate risks being swung into enemy territory. It often has to be acknowledged that one of two situations has arisen: either any neutral person likely to be swayed by such arguments got bored and went home a week ago, or the opposite comment was so obviously loaded that it would either be ignored or seen for what it was. It's something that when in the heat of battle without the benefit of outside perspective one can become completely unaware of. Note the generalities - I am describing arguments I have myself been involved in in the past (and could even point you to talk pages where myself and then-opposite numbers have acted in thoroughly silly ways a year or more ago), but I'm seeing elements of this false sense of urgency in some of the replies here. The world won't change tomorrow if you don't reply to a comment you don't agree with. Orderinchaos 02:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Freezing John Howard

I would still like to make the suggestion that we freeze this article for the forseable future (if not for good) as a possible lasting solution to the edit controversies that will I believe be never ending otherwise. As an ex and retired MP and PM the man can no logner make any serious contribution to Australian Politics and all that should really go in there now is his obit. And please do not edit this comment out as it is a perfectly valid and appropriate comment and suggestion! Reverters and undoers will indeed feel my wrath! Mattjs (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedian model of editing sort of precludes freezing articles - the whole idea is to develop and improve. This article basically came together with no plan at all, which is part of why there's so many problems - it's like building a house without a plan, we've got two garages, no doors, a walled-in bedroom and the roof isn't guaranteed not to fall in. Starting again and thinking "how can we adopt a structured approach to make this work?" seems to me to be a sensible solution. I do agree with you that his contributions to Australian politics are probably mostly history, although in practice you can never rule anything out and other leaders have made their mark in their own way long after their retirement. Orderinchaos 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Name an ex-PM who has made a significant "political" contribution after politics? (At least a conservative one with the exception perhaps of say Malcolm Frazer who by all acounts was instead a liberal?) 122.148.173.37 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The anon account is missing the point - although Mattjs' suggestion is made with the best intentions, no wikipedia article is considered completely finished and thus needs freezing.--Merbabu (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is a biography about a person who was for 33 years a politician. I think of Andrew Peacock and John Hewson (while not PMs) as good examples of people with reasonably extensive lives beyond politics. Menzies of course still commanded considerable influence beyond his depature, although chose to exercise it sparingly. Orderinchaos 12:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• As per OiC we do not freeze articles - even featured articles - ie those of such a quality where we expect few improvements unless new material comes to light. This article is not of good quality and needs work. We work on it as a community and the process is not always smooth. The article will improve - perhaps slowly ... --Matilda ^talk 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Articles should never be frozen, even though the subject matter may become static, we should always be keeping articles relevant to the readers. That said, I agree that the structure/emphasis of the article should change now he is out of politics. What politicians say is very important while they are in office, because it is an indication of what they might do, and affects people's votes. Once out of office though, what they DID is more important. Although obviously, particularly noteworthy speeches should be included (to my mind, the "circumstances under which they come", "lazarus with a triple bypass" and "never-ever" GST quotes are worthy of inclusion). --Surturz (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Although Surturz and I come from rather different political perspectives, I'd agree with most of the above. Additionally, in foreign contexts (and occasionally in the Australian), sometimes such comments have proved worthy of their own articles. The Lazarus one may well prove to be so, as it ceased to extend to merely one leader in public commentary and came to refer to Beazley as well, and has come into use in literature and academia. Orderinchaos 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Apropos of focusing on what politicians 'do' (i.e. using verbs), does this mean that 'Children overboard' (for example) will be described by the verb 'to lie', or will it have to be presented by a combination of verbs 'to say' (for what was said by Howard) and 'to be' (for what occurred between the sinking boat and the ocean)? Eyedubya (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)