Talk:John Howard/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Is this common?

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=17666 - nice picture... Timeshift 03:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw Beattie's wikipedia picture on the news a couple of weeks ago on a hate pamphlet by one of the amalgamation campaign groups, I think the pamphlet compared him to a nazi and a communist. WikiTownsvillian 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kirribilli House

Is there a reason why Kirribilli House and The Lodge aren't mentioned in the First term section? That was a significant issue then and still is in a way now his children are all adult. WikiTownsvillian 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think it was minor compared to the points mentioned in that section, though something could be added. Peter Ballard 12:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Tracksuit

Could we get a picture of him supporting the Socceroos wearing his green & gold tracksuit? Could we also get some statistics on where he jogs in the morning? Sven the llama 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

planning on a bit of stalking are you? :) WikiTownsvillian 03:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Um collecting statistics on where he jogs would be OR. If you want to do something like that, try a blog or something. And personally given the current climate in Australia I would take great care collecting something like that. Nil Einne 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous affairs

This, in the light of recent events, deserves its own section. I certainly don't feel up to writing it. . . Slac speak up!

As is usually the case in this sort of thing, I suggest waiting a couple of weeks for perspective. On the other hand, it could be good to expand on his handling of it in his first 2 terms (Wik is hardly mentioned, though it does have its own article). Peter Ballard 09:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Can someone get his signature, like they have for UK and USA leaders?

It's not a high priority. Slac speak up! 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Rt Hon"

John Howard is NOT a "Right Honourable". For some reason, "Prestor John" (who deleted my message last time I pointed this out) and "Socialdemocrats" (who added "Rt Hon" in the first place) seem to think that this is not true. I really don't want to register at Wikipedia, but I don't appreciate when I bring up a valid point that is deleted as "anon vandalism". This is why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously as a reliable source. John Howard is "The Hon John Howard". He IS NOT "The Rt Hon". It is a fact, get over it. The last PM to be "The Rt Hon" was Fraser, no other PM has been a member of Privy. I can't change this as the article is protected, so would somebody else?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.150.137 (talk • contribs)

As per my edit comment, done. Wikipedia, although not as accurate as it could be, can be improved by more editors ensuring it is correct. Join up and assist and it will be increasingly correct. It may not be fully correct, but is to some extent taken seriously, and in some cases is the only place to find the information. Template: Politics of Australia... AFAIK theres no other place on the web with a comprehensive federal election database like that. Timeshift 02:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Youtube debacle

I suggest adding a section dealing with the Youtube incident of July 2007, where John Howard's foray into the internet resulted in his being widely mocked and lampooned by the public Zzzzeta 01:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WikiTownsvillian 02:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add a brief section at the bottom. Feel free to edit it if it's not formal enough. Zzzzeta 06:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the page needs an update in general to include this as well as his recent troubles with the leadership including criticism from Fraser Costello and Hewson as well as those amusing words about lying from Howard's wife himself. Timeshift 03:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

"You talk about a whole lot of things when you are trying to convince people to do things, but you don't go back and honour every single one of those unless you have made a firm commitment about it, and John wasn't into making firm commitments." [1]

Yes, Fraser, Costello, Hewson and now his own wife are making him look bad. Interesting times. Timeshift 08:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The above quote from Mrs Howard is hardly about lying. If anyone is trying to sway another, they talk about possibilities and potentials. Latham talked big about what he'd do as Prime Minister last election. Are those all lies? Get a grip. --Pete 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_howard.jpg - I see it's from wikipedia commons, perhaps i'm not familiar enough with WC, but what is the source of this image exactly? A caption of John Howard in the USA in 1997 is a bit ambiguous... does anyone know what he was there for? Timeshift 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The team is ready to cleanse Howard's image. No criticism allowed!!!

It's kind of sad that there's a ready-waiting team of people hovering over this article ready to delete anything that may not be seen as complimentary to John Howard. Sometimes I wonder whether some people are actually employed for this task. In the Record as Treasurer section, the Peter Costello comments keep getting deleted. In the Opposition Years section, the paragraph about Howard entering parliament drunk keep getting deleted, even though Howard himself admitted to it. Take a look at this previous version of the article -->04:20, 25 July 2007 Lester2..it has those 2 paragraphs still intact. Lester2 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I see it the other way around. A team of people doing their best to trash John Howard. We don't need cheap abuse in a biographical article of a major figure, any more than we need fawning praise. Try to keep your mind on NPOV, rather than fighting the next election in the pages of Wikipedia. --Pete 04:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As it stands (in its present cleansed form), the John Howard article is not just about the man, but is mostly about his policies. So if its going to have endless info about his policies and achievements, then it also needs counterpoint. A brief paragraph quoting Deputy Prime Minister / Treasurer Peter Costello criticising Howards years as treasurer is highly relevant. Especially when it disputes some of the "facts" the way Howard saw them. Also, being drunk in Parliament is a rather extraordinary and newsworthy event. It's highly relevant, given Howard's tough stance on alcohol. Yes, lets include Howard's glory (which is already included), but unfortunately the soldiers guarding Howard's image only want praise and glory, and delete any counterpoint. The Wiki article then becomes a duplicate of Howard's own website Lester2 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hard to separate the man and his policies when he is a significant political figure. This goes for any long-serving head of government. Criticism is in order, but Costello's comments are of dubious merit, considering the longstanding rivalry between the two. It would be more useful to have some authorative and impartial criticism included.

Being drunk in Parliament is a commonplace. We don't need it in a biographical article.

If you believe that "guarding Howard's glory" is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then you should likewise oppose any one-sided "tarnishing Howard's image" campaign. Judging by your contributions here, this does not seem to be the case. --Pete 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, it is pretty hard to say something kind about a man that lied about children overboard, lied when he said the government could do nothing for David Hicks, lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, lied about the Australian wheat board scandal and decided to use Indigenous welfare (a devestating problem for his entire reign in parliament) as a means of winning an election. Now, I haven't put any of this stuff in his main article because in order to have a nuetral point of view, I'd need to balance it by showing some of Howard's better moments but sadly there aren't enough to do that. Vision Insider 06:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard drunk at work

Just how encyclopaedic is this? Take a look at Question Time - after a long lunch half the pollies will be at least slightly sozzled. Is Howard having a drink worthy of inclusion in a biographical article? Only, I suggest, if he took some sort of drunken action. Andrew Bartlett springs to mind. --Pete 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. It should be removed as not significantly important. Slac speak up! 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a paragraph about the drunkeness. (See the previous discussion titled The team is ready to cleans Howards image). You can see the link to the previous version of the article -->04:20, 25 July 2007 Lester2 which has now been deleted. It is historically relevant that the man who is now Prime Minister of Australia once sat in parliament drunk. Even Howard himself has admitted to it, and every major newspaper in Australia is carrying the story. Lester2 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also part of his recent biography and in the mainstream Australian media (not "tabloid/tattle"). During the coming days I am sure there will be additional information regarding this matter and I'm sure there will be notable/noteworthy info and statements relating to this topic. --Mikecraig 05:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and consider how any given small paragraph in the article will cover a major topic like Tampa, Iraq, GST, firearms reform, election campaign and so forth. All of these topics were heavily discussed on a daily basis for 3-9 months (in the case of the GST, probably a year). Things like these usually took up about 25% of the serious news info for the given timespan. Are the serious broadsheets and ABC going to devote 25% of their news/current affairs for three months talking about a glass of wine? Certainly not, and at least 10X more time talking about Mohamed Haneef, who is not mentioned in the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's edits are nothing more than backyard fence gossip. He is throwing mud in the hope something will stick. Let's hope he can understand about the consensus and what constitutes WP:BLP in a decent living person biography. Let me just add, an Australian turning up drunk for work doesn't get any LESS notable. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved, lest to say that IIRC Prester John is an ex-Liberal MP. Timeshift 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many are actually paid to keep Howard's image clean on the Wiki. Anyway, nothing I've added is "gossip", as it is cited, and Howard himself admitted to the drunken incident. It's also one of the few anacdotes that gives a real insight into the feelings of the man himself. Howard has taken a tough line on alcohol, and on aboriginal people using alcohol, which makes the revelation of his own drunken episode incredibly relevant. It seems to take an average of 6 minutes for the Howard guardians to cleanse the article of cited newsworthy facts like this. Lester2 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:UNDUE. I am not a Howard supporter. If you want to put in bad stuff, put in something worthwhile like HECS fees instead of this junk. I would have to say that Howard (and any other person) talks about alcohol in the sense of people engaging in bad behaviour as a result of this. If he drink drives, beats up his wife, abuses his children or behaves inappropriately then it would be notable. Wikipedia is not an anecdote farm. Anybody can be drunk and as long as they don't engage in bad behaviour or have a performance drop because of it then it is not relevant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet much more newsworthy stuff like the River Murray plan or the aboriginal intervention plan are not even mentioned. Things need to be relevant, not just cited. Peter Ballard 05:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

For those Howard defenders who keep deleting the paragraph about Howard being drunk in Parliament, I don't think you really do your cause any good. The anecdote was just a curiosity that I don't think will do Howard any political damage, despite it being reported in every Australian newspaper. Instead, what you'll achieve is a Wiki article so clean of anything even slightly negative (or even colourful), that the article will look like it's obviously been "laundered". To user 'Blnguyen' who sent me a private message threatening to have me banned, if that's what you wish to do, you are welcome to try :) Lester2 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it won't. What is will do is damage Wikipedia, in the sense that people who look up John Howard will see it full of irrelevant news items, with some hugely important stuff missing. You seem to be assuming that every editor (except you, of course!) is politically motivated. Please, assume good faith, most of us just want to improve the quality of article. Peter Ballard 06:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "drunk in Parliament" material, again. There doesn't seem to be any merit or much in the way of support. If it emerges that Howard had a history of formulating policy in his cups or conducted drunken rampages through Parliament House after hours, then maybe.

The criticism from Costello is more interesting and I'd like to see some discussion on this. Given the source, its credibility and intention are open to debate. Looking at Peter Costello, who didn't enter Parliament until 1990, his comments on Howard's threatened resignation are worthless. He simply wasn't in a position to know. --Pete 02:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The drinking episode adds a perspective to the leadership defeat to Peacock. The book says that Howard began drinking too much after his defeat to Andrew Peacock. It shows emotional stress. despair. How can that not be relevant? Lester2 07:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless we see some consensus here to keep it, it will keep on being deleted. Nobody disputes that it is accurate and sourced. It's just not notable. --Pete 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A lot of comments (above) say that Howard's drinking habits are not relevant to anything. Let me put it a different way: Why should Howard be treated differently to anyone else? Here's some examples: George W. Bush was drinking excessively before he entered politics. Andrew Bartlett was drinking excessively while in politics. And former PM John Gorton drank excessively after leaving politics. All of these people have it mentioned in their Wiki pages in much greater detail than John Howard's brief mention. Name a politician who was proven in some citable way to have drunk too much who doesn't have it mentioned in their Wiki page. Especially one who's policy is to take a hard line against alcohol (ie, prohibition of Aboriginal communities). The mention of alcohol in Howard's page is brief and it's relevant. Lester2 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We work on consensus here. Either convince a few editors other than yourself or stop wasting everyone's time, please. --Pete 00:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

PM admits drunken address Timeshift 01:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, 'Timeshift'. I wrote that Howard entered the House of Representatives chamber drunk. I was cautious not to say that he addressed Parliament drunk, as I wasn't sure if it was a verifiable enough fact. The News Ltd story you post seems to have been revised in later editions. But, now we don't have any mention of entering the chamber drunk (even though Howard admitted it), because it has been deleted. Lester2 03:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote re: Asian Immigration

I added the exact Howard quote from 1988 regarding his views on Asian Immigration. It's a brief but historical quote that allows readers a better understanding of the controversy of 1988. Within minutes, the quote was deleted multiple times by User:Skyring and again by User:Blnguyen, without reason given, so I will revert it yet again. It's one of the most famous quotes from JH himself, it is brief, so I don't see what the problem is. I suggest it's better to add to Wiki articles rather than spend the whole time deleting the referenced material that others have contributed. Here is the link to the article version with my contribution >>Version 147372141<< in case someone deletes it again, and others want to see what it was. Lester2 23:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the immigration and alcohol issues need to be separated. I've restored the immigration comments because it was a big issue at the time. I've also removed the comment that it weakened his position. I'm not convinced it did (sadly). Peter Ballard 04:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, the quote should only be included if it is explained a little. As it stands, the quote is given on its own with no context except to say that it "created controversy". What controversy? Why did he say this? Who was upset? What happened as a result? And perhaps, why was it notable? It seems to me that at the moment it is just an attempt to get a cheap-shot that insinuates Howard is anti-asian into the article. --Yeti Hunter 07:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that there has been a fair amount of "cheap-shotting" recently. However, I think that the quote is important, perhaps not necessarily in this article, but possibly in a more focussed article regarding race relationships in Australia. There's certainly a lot of material about, looking at increasing Asian immigration in the final quarter of the C20, Pauline Hanson, race riots and so on. Giving the quote to John Howard without a wider context isn't fair dealing. --Pete 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To 'Yetihunter'... I agree that more info could be added. There was a lot of controversy back in 1988, and that detail could be included. J.H. made a similar comment on the John Laws radio program at that time, though I don't know of any transcripts. Then again, it was pretty hard to have this brief quote included, as it got deleted many times. To 'Skyring-Pete'... There is a mountain of material and quotes regarding racial issues from John Howard himself, enough to fill a separate Wiki article. To me, it's an important part of John Howard's history, and of our history (no matter whether we agree or disagree with what was said). A separate article about Howard's statements and policies about race would get around the problem of the present article's chronological order, as the quotes cover Howard's entire time in politics. I'd be willing to do the research and find the references (which would take a significant amount of work), but once again, I'm afraid that it would be deleted the second it is posted. Lester2 09:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Biographical details

This article lacks information about Howard's ethnic background and religious affiliation. Once these are added, then categories can be added in too, so that the ethnic and religious make up of Australia's politicians can be better covered. For a comparison, look at the article on Paul Keating. We learn that he has Irish ancestry and is a Catholic. It is not fair to say that readers would be correct in assuming that Howard is the 'default ethnicity' for Australians, which is Anglo Saxon Protestant, on the basis of a photo and his name, so therefore there is no need to state it, any more than readers would be left in the dark about these details in relation to someone with the name Keating (its a pretty well known Irish name, and most stereotypes about the Irish involve them being Catholics), so thus it needs to be stated. Biographical details like DoB, ethnic background/ancestry and religious affiliation are standard fare in an encyclopedia.Eyedubya 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

His religious affiliation, such as it is, should probably be in the "early life" section. I don't think ethnicity should be, on the basis that it is rarely if ever remarked on. I would argue that ethnic background is not standard fare for an encyclopedia, unless it is unusual or notable. Most people care little about it, thankfully. Peter Ballard 07:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So, would you argue that Keating's Irish ancestry is any more notable than whatever Howard's ancestry is? And why only in his early life section - didn't his belief in a god of some kind play an important role in his version of the 'preamble' for a republic? Also, when you say 'most people care little about it', what do you mean - about ethnicity in general, or that of John Howard? It would appear that you mean the former. What evidence do you have to support this assertion about the attitudes of 'most people'? - and which 'most' are you referring to? Australians? People from China? Africa? Europe? the USA? The majority of those with internet connections live outside Australia - how can you be so sure that they're not interested in the ethnicity of Australian Prime Ministers? Eyedubya 11:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Keating, IIRC, went to Ireland while he was PM and visited an ancestor's grave. But beyond that. no, Keating's Irish ancestry is of limited interest too. By "most", I mean most news sources and articles about Howard (or for that matter Keating). If you can find reliable sources on Howard's ethnicity, put it in. If you can't find any, then that says something about how much people care about his ethnicity. As for the "early life" section, I mean that's the best place in the article as it stands. Not in the Infobox: a consensus decision was reached a while ago to remove religion from the infobox of all Australian politicians. Peter Ballard 02:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll just have to make do with the bit at the bottom that lists Howard as an 'Anglican politician'. Eyedubya 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard

Section: Opposition years (1983-1996) Link to text:[2]

On 3 August, 2007, I added the following historic information:

The Hawke government immediately seized the opportunity to embarrass Howard over his Asian remarks by introducing a motion to the parliament opposing the use of race to select immigrants. Howard fought desperately against the motion, despite some other Liberal MPs crossing the floor to support it.

However, it was quickly deleted by Blnguyen. This time, the deletion occurred 7 minutes after it was added (usually cited Howard information is deleted in only 6 minutes!!!). The issue of deletion needs to be discussed. Lester2 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is work as part of a team. At the moment you are being an irritant to more experienced editors and your contributions are being seen as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss your edits here rather than edit-warring over them. --Pete 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My dear Mr Pete (Skyring). This is an area for civil discussion only. I invite those who wish to engage in civilised discussion. Lester2 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to WP and to this page in particular. But for what it's worth... My sense is that one issue with this and some other contribs has been the choice of language - i think it would be a rare situation where it would be appropriate to use the words "fought desperately" in an encyclopedia article, unless they were directly quoting an authoritative source of the day. Ditto "immediately seized the opportunity". It isn't that these things are not arguably true in a broad sense. Rather, every decision to adopt this language - which would be appropriate in a newspaper opinion column or article in something like Quadrant or The Monthly - undermines the fragile balance of NPOV. NPOV is all the more difficult to maintain in any article on a contemporary political figure, so they require even more careful writing than articles about less contentious subjects (or even contentious, but historical, subjects). Despite some flaws, the language on the page as it stands at this moment seems somewhat preferable to Lester2's. However, I also think the entry will ultimately benefit from one or two referenced examples of how Howard's stance was used against him later, as well as for balance perhaps reporting his more recent reflections on the issue. Ultimately this entry aims to inform complete outsiders about the nature and significance of Howard's role in public life, which is why it does seem appropriate to report the long term impact and analysis of this well-known incident. I don't know if my contribution helps at all. If I get some time, I might try and do some work on the entry to follow my points through... cheers hamiltonstone 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Something might be true and well-sourced, but notability and appropriateness for a biographical article also needs to be considered. The race quote is reasonably well-known and bears inclusion, if for no other reason than its aptness in terms of later problems with integration. But parliamemtary motions across the despatch boxes, although well sourced in Hansard, complete to extreme and inflammatory language, are rarely worthy of inclusion in a biographical article. --Pete 02:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To 'hamiltonstone': the line "immediately seized the opportunity" was how it was described in newspaper reports. Someone deleted that line in later revisions so I guess it doesn't matter. // To 'Pete/Skyring' the notability of the event can be proven by the wealth of newspaper articles on it. There are no Googleable stories from the mid -1980s. All the stories are recent ones, which shows it's of current interest and notable. I can cite more news items if requested. 3rd opinion sought Lester2 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the only editor who wants this stuff included, you've edit-warred over it, you keep on reinserting it without consensus, and if you do it again I'll report you on 3RR. --Pete 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your 3rd opinion request, it seems that you haven't grasped the point that this is intended for a fresh pair of eyes on disputes involving only two editors. Looking at the history page, it is clear that multiple editors are opposed to the material you alone keep on reinserting. --Pete 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's notable but not because the motion started with Hawke, trying to embarrass Howard (I wasn't aware that it had gone like that). It's notable only because a number of his own members crossed the floor against him (and because one of those was Philip Ruddock - I'll be elaborating this point on Ruddock's page, which only mentions it briefly). I think it is an integral point, to show that not all the Liberals were with Howard at that time. Couldn't we have a compromise, take out the dramatic language "immediately seized the opportunity", but leave in the notable fact that Ruddock and others did cross the floor on this issue? Nick 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi User:Nick, glad you found the information notable. I'm happy with the ideas of User:Nick and User:hamiltonstone, that the event is notable for inclusion, and that that colorful language like "seized the opportunity" and "Howard fought desperately" be toned down. The final version at 15:03, 5 August 2007 is fairly minimalist, and may come close to what you want. Maybe you guys can improve on that. I'm also happy if anyone wants to expand it. Lester2 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While I believe that Howard's comments at the time are very notable (probably the biggest stuffup of his 1st term as opposition leader, apart from his inability to control the Peacock and Joh camps), I'm not convinced that the parliamentary vote is the best way to expand on it. I'd like to see the section expanded, but instead with detail on how and why he was criticised for it. The parliamentary vote itself isn't notable without some explanation of the controversy surrounding it. p.s. It definitely belongs on the Ruddock page though, because though just another day in parliament for Howard, it was a very big deal for Ruddock. Peter Ballard 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be expanded unless the rest of the opposition years is proportionally expanded. Since the motion itself does not appear to be a piece of legislation or program, but only appears to be a statement of ideology, I don't think that the motion is notable. In parliament they have these types of things all the time, condemning some terrorist act, expressing condolences for victims of natural disasters and condemning Mugabe and so forth. I think explaing the impact of the controversy is more important. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there are motions passed all the time (in the parliamentary sense!). Like those examples condemning Mugabe, or condemning a terrorist act. Those examples are non-notable, because all the parliamentarians voted as expected. But imagine if an MP voted to show his support for Robert Mugabe, or support for a terrorist act. Then they would become notable. Unlike Ruddock, Howard voted to oppose the motion that would outlaw race as a criteria for selecting immigrants. That makes it very significant and noteworthy.Lester2 03:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a count of how many ppl crossed the floor from teh Liberals. Was it a massive number? The link that Lester provided doesn't show who voted which way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From memory it was 3. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s672095.htm Peter Ballard 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's comparison to Mugabe above is just ridiculous. Hawke was just grandstanding and of course his motion did not reflect the reality. Of far more interest is that there were divisons within the Liberals. However, Howard has always had his party opponents and many, such as Peacock and Costello, have been fairly vocal. It is in the nature of the Liberals, that members can and do cross the floor albeit rarely. Alby Schultz, as a local example. Going back to the 1975 crisis, Whitlam fully expected a few Libs to crack. It is not the same as the ALP, where the appearance of solidarity is demanded on every level. Look at the odium heaped upon Mal Colston, speaking of 1975. --Pete 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is with formal mediation. Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete) (and anyone else who would like to comment, are you accepting of mediation? Lester2 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Does permission equal relevance?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/diongillard/93805238/ Timeshift 04:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needs protection

Which admin decided it would be more productive to lift the protection on this page? I'm sure I recall hearing from an admin that Wikipedia won't even consider lifting the page protection until Howard is out of office. Timeshift 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All unprotected the page with this edit. I for one am sick of reverting the blankings and "frothing at the mouth" ravings, entirely in capital letters. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

3 Photos of Bush

I agree with User:Intelligent Mr Toad and this edit. Three separate pictures of Howard and Bush amount to a violation of WP:POINT. I am removing two until suitable replacements can be found. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As per edit summary. Timeshift 08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Prestor John, ex-liberal mp, whatever you want to be known as. I have compromised by removing one of the photos, but the other three photos stay. Two have Bush, with one of those containing Howard's wife. That's the nature of wikipedia, US photos are freely usable images. I've cited one who agrees with me, and nobody else has raised an eyebrow until you, an ex-liberal, comes along to remove them. Please take your bias elsewhere. Timeshift 09:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO it is not "editorialising". To do otherwise leaves a text-heavy page that is hard on the eyes. I'm personally of the opinion that one image per screen is fine, and this is one image per 2.5 screens at present. I for one would be happy if people took more photos of John Howard and uploaded them, or his press office released some under GFDL (this will never happen - believe me, some of us have tried contacting politicians for this purpose and it's often a fruitless pursuit as many of them have older press advisors who just don't "get" technology) so that we could have a wider diversity of photos, but unfortunately we are constrained by Wikipedia's new (2007) fair use rules/enforcement to what is free for a living politician. My own pic of him taken at a rally in Perth sucks, was too close up. Orderinchaos 10:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

New image

I have an issue with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liberal1.JPG - who else agrees it is not encyclopaedic and/or POV? Timeshift 10:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine as it seems to show how Howard wishes to be seen as a strong man leading and defending Australia. Also shows campaigning techniques. Might do with a better/more descriptive caption. 203.28.240.20 10:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally have no problem with it - it shows how he is being promoted by his party. The caption might need work but the poster is fine. If anything it's more likely to offend right-wing sensibilities as he's looking a bit Hansonish in this one. Orderinchaos 10:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what the source of this is? Is it from the Liberals? Prove it is - otherwise, speedy deletion ;-) Timeshift 10:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We have promotional images in other articles, such as Image:Rann gets results.jpg, Image:SA06posters.PNG and Image:Liberalhtv.jpg just in a cursory look around - and that's not even getting into historic ones. As an administrator quite capable of actioning or declining a speedy deletion request, I would much prefer to see community discussion rather than threats and point-pushing on both sides of the debate as we've seen today. Orderinchaos 10:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems suitable for inclusion as illustrates techniques of Howard election campaign. Removal seems to be POV. 203.28.240.20 10:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Still would like to see the source of the image. Looks like a photoshop work to me. If the image is genuine it is worth inclusion - it is funny Alex Bakharev 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I was also amused by it. Mind you, I've seen similar efforts in small country towns in my travels, so such things do seem to exist. Orderinchaos 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a photoshop, and if not then from an old advertising campaign. It should certainly be moved from the Australian federal election, 2007 page, where this editor seems to determined to place it. Recurring dreams 11:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If photos with a source and solid detailed fair use rationale are deleted, I fail to see how this image without any source or detailed rationale is OK for use. To simply take on word alone that it was scanned and that's the end of it would be foolish. And as for the anonymous comments, with the level of vandalism lately i'd suggest to ignore them and stick to the long-established members. Timeshift 11:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The photos on this page really don't show much. Howard has certainly maintained a close relationship with the USA, but does that mean that every photo should have been taken in the US? Vox latina 11:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put my pictures online at [3]. Orderinchaos 11:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you - any quality photo of Howard you have that doesn't breach Wikipedia rules is most welcome. The way Wikipedia is designed, be it for better or worse, is that photos by US press, such as those in this article, are freely useable on wikipedia. It's better to have photos that will stay there than dodgy photos which will over time be deleted for copyvio issues. But again, any photo you've taken or another who has given their permission and is a quality photo, it is more than welcome. Kudos to Orderinchaos, it's just a pity the pictures are of such poor quality as he has already mentioned. Timeshift 11:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a photoshop job. If this was real Liberal Party material, a good proportion of members would resign if its designer was not fired. Delete on sight, block the troll. Michael ^talk 11:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it eligable for speedy delete? Timeshift 11:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the (actual) image which I photographed up north in my recent holiday, which isn't that dissimilar, and is definitely kosher. Different strokes for different folks, and the country and the city clearly adopt different campaigning methods. Orderinchaos 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That said, we will not take "scanned from a Liberal pamphlet" in good faith on this one. Timeshift 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one am prepared to show good faith, I was actually going to contact the Liberal Party's office tomorrow morning when they open and link them to it. If they say it's not theirs, I'll happily support its removal. I don't see any reason why it can't wait 14 hours. - edit - Looks like Alex Bakharev has taken care of that for me. I will support the outcome of that process. Orderinchaos 11:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As per Image talk:Liberal1.JPG, Greg Hunt has been emailed by Alex as you have said, I am also happy with this outcome. Timeshift 11:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo is very uncomplimentary. No way is that a genuine Liberal poster. Orderinchaos's example is quite different because it shows JWH looking composed and statesmanlike, though I doubt that one is genuine Liberal material either. Peter Ballard 12:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Do you think that this would fail to get on the front page of every Australian newspaper if it were genuine? Howard holding a gun, good greif! Add to that the woefully amateur layout and design, there is no way this is anything other than a (poor) photoshop job.--Yeti Hunter 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, honestly, how pathetic. I've deleted it. --cj | talk 04:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Article needs protection

Which admin decided it would be more productive to lift the protection on this page? I'm sure I recall hearing from an admin that Wikipedia won't even consider lifting the page protection until Howard is out of office. Timeshift 03:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Voice of All unprotected the page with this edit. I for one am sick of reverting the blankings and "frothing at the mouth" ravings, entirely in capital letters. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Still lots of vandalism going on [4] Lester2 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth apologising for State misdeeds

Here's a reference to a current news story. It's from the Las Vegas Sun, but the same story, according to Google, is found in newspapers worldwide. The key point is that the Commonwealth is not admitting any responsibility, instead pointing the finger at State governments and church organisations. --Pete 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well of course the Commonwealth is not admitting responsibility, because it's a Howard government minister reflecting Howard's view of the world. But the calls were for the federal government to apologise for past Federal misdeeds, not the misdeeds of other governments. The Stolen generations report, said: "Recommendation 5a: That all Australian Parliaments 1.officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal,.... Peter Ballard 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So have I made my case? Does someone else want to revert the text? Peter Ballard 08:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made a case, because the calls were not for a federal apology, but a national apology. There is a difference, though I am not sure that those demanding an apology were aware of it or the significance of the 1967 referendum. I'm not happy with the "previous generations" wording because it doesn't give the full story. --Pete 08:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Didn't you read the bit which called for "all Australian Parliaments" to apologise? And if you read the Stolen Generations report, you will see that federal involvement is documented. Not even Howard tried to deflect it by saying it was a State but not a Federal responsibility. (The cite you offer above doesn't do that, merely claiming that "most" - not all - were caused by State governments). Saying that the debate was only over the action of "colonial and state governments" is false. Peter Ballard 12:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "generations" to "governments", which seems to cover the BTH recommendation. --Pete 22:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bob Hawke motion on race, opposed by Howard

Section: Opposition years (1983-1996) Link to text:[5]

On 3 August, 2007, I added the following historic information:

The Hawke government immediately seized the opportunity to embarrass Howard over his Asian remarks by introducing a motion to the parliament opposing the use of race to select immigrants. Howard fought desperately against the motion, despite some other Liberal MPs crossing the floor to support it.

However, it was quickly deleted by Blnguyen. This time, the deletion occurred 7 minutes after it was added (usually cited Howard information is deleted in only 6 minutes!!!). The issue of deletion needs to be discussed. Lester2 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What you need to do is work as part of a team. At the moment you are being an irritant to more experienced editors and your contributions are being seen as vandalism. I suggest that you discuss your edits here rather than edit-warring over them. --Pete 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My dear Mr Pete (Skyring). This is an area for civil discussion only. I invite those who wish to engage in civilised discussion. Lester2 04:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to WP and to this page in particular. But for what it's worth... My sense is that one issue with this and some other contribs has been the choice of language - i think it would be a rare situation where it would be appropriate to use the words "fought desperately" in an encyclopedia article, unless they were directly quoting an authoritative source of the day. Ditto "immediately seized the opportunity". It isn't that these things are not arguably true in a broad sense. Rather, every decision to adopt this language - which would be appropriate in a newspaper opinion column or article in something like Quadrant or The Monthly - undermines the fragile balance of NPOV. NPOV is all the more difficult to maintain in any article on a contemporary political figure, so they require even more careful writing than articles about less contentious subjects (or even contentious, but historical, subjects). Despite some flaws, the language on the page as it stands at this moment seems somewhat preferable to Lester2's. However, I also think the entry will ultimately benefit from one or two referenced examples of how Howard's stance was used against him later, as well as for balance perhaps reporting his more recent reflections on the issue. Ultimately this entry aims to inform complete outsiders about the nature and significance of Howard's role in public life, which is why it does seem appropriate to report the long term impact and analysis of this well-known incident. I don't know if my contribution helps at all. If I get some time, I might try and do some work on the entry to follow my points through... cheers hamiltonstone 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Something might be true and well-sourced, but notability and appropriateness for a biographical article also needs to be considered. The race quote is reasonably well-known and bears inclusion, if for no other reason than its aptness in terms of later problems with integration. But parliamemtary motions across the despatch boxes, although well sourced in Hansard, complete to extreme and inflammatory language, are rarely worthy of inclusion in a biographical article. --Pete 02:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

To 'hamiltonstone': the line "immediately seized the opportunity" was how it was described in newspaper reports. Someone deleted that line in later revisions so I guess it doesn't matter. // To 'Pete/Skyring' the notability of the event can be proven by the wealth of newspaper articles on it. There are no Googleable stories from the mid -1980s. All the stories are recent ones, which shows it's of current interest and notable. I can cite more news items if requested. 3rd opinion sought Lester2 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are the only editor who wants this stuff included, you've edit-warred over it, you keep on reinserting it without consensus, and if you do it again I'll report you on 3RR. --Pete 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your 3rd opinion request, it seems that you haven't grasped the point that this is intended for a fresh pair of eyes on disputes involving only two editors. Looking at the history page, it is clear that multiple editors are opposed to the material you alone keep on reinserting. --Pete 22:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's notable but not because the motion started with Hawke, trying to embarrass Howard (I wasn't aware that it had gone like that). It's notable only because a number of his own members crossed the floor against him (and because one of those was Philip Ruddock - I'll be elaborating this point on Ruddock's page, which only mentions it briefly). I think it is an integral point, to show that not all the Liberals were with Howard at that time. Couldn't we have a compromise, take out the dramatic language "immediately seized the opportunity", but leave in the notable fact that Ruddock and others did cross the floor on this issue? Nick 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi User:Nick, glad you found the information notable. I'm happy with the ideas of User:Nick and User:hamiltonstone, that the event is notable for inclusion, and that that colorful language like "seized the opportunity" and "Howard fought desperately" be toned down. The final version at 15:03, 5 August 2007 is fairly minimalist, and may come close to what you want. Maybe you guys can improve on that. I'm also happy if anyone wants to expand it. Lester2 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While I believe that Howard's comments at the time are very notable (probably the biggest stuffup of his 1st term as opposition leader, apart from his inability to control the Peacock and Joh camps), I'm not convinced that the parliamentary vote is the best way to expand on it. I'd like to see the section expanded, but instead with detail on how and why he was criticised for it. The parliamentary vote itself isn't notable without some explanation of the controversy surrounding it. p.s. It definitely belongs on the Ruddock page though, because though just another day in parliament for Howard, it was a very big deal for Ruddock. Peter Ballard 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be expanded unless the rest of the opposition years is proportionally expanded. Since the motion itself does not appear to be a piece of legislation or program, but only appears to be a statement of ideology, I don't think that the motion is notable. In parliament they have these types of things all the time, condemning some terrorist act, expressing condolences for victims of natural disasters and condemning Mugabe and so forth. I think explaing the impact of the controversy is more important. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there are motions passed all the time (in the parliamentary sense!). Like those examples condemning Mugabe, or condemning a terrorist act. Those examples are notable, because all the parliamentarians voted as expected. But imagine if an MP voted to show his support for Robert Mugabe, or support for a terrorist act. Then they would become notable. Unlike Ruddock, Howard voted to oppose the motion that would outlaw race as a criteria for selecting immigrants. That makes it very significant and noteworthy.Lester2 03:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a count of how many ppl crossed the floor from teh Liberals. Was it a massive number? The link that Lester provided doesn't show who voted which way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From memory it was 3. http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s672095.htm Peter Ballard 04:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lester2's comparison to Mugabe above is just ridiculous. Hawke was just grandstanding and of course his motion did not reflect the reality. Of far more interest is that there were divisons within the Liberals. However, Howard has always had his many party opponents and many, such as Peacock and Costello, have been fairly vocal. It is in the nature of the Liberals, that members can and do cross the floor albeit rarely. Alby Schultz, as a local example. Going back to the 1975 crisis, Whitlam fully expected a few Libs to crack. It is not the same as the ALP, where the appearance of solidarity is demanded on every level. Look at the odium heaped upon Mal Colston, speaking of 1975. --Pete 05:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is with formal mediation. Blnguyen & Skyring (Pete) (and anyone else who would like to comment, are you accepting of mediation? Lester2 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new paragraph to incorporate some of the ideas (above). Using language suggested by User:Nick and User:hamiltonstone, and incorporating more information about the dissent, as suggested by Peter Ballard. Interesting, the quote from Steele Hall's address to parliament on the issue appeared in The Sydney Morning Herald only a few days ago, which further proves the notablility of the event 19 years ago. On today's standards, it's rather extraordinary that 3 MPs defied the wishes of their leader and crossed the floor of parliament. Even more extraordinary is that one of those MPs, Steele Hall addressed the parliament with a stinging rebuke to his leader. When has something like that again happened in recent times? Cheers, Lester2 05:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to comment that the addition wasn't what I had in mind, but Blnguyen beat me to it and deleted it. For the purposes of WP, we don't expand by quoting Steele Hall, because the quote reads simply as an anti-Howard editorial. Instead, what I think it needs is explanation of why the event was significant. e.g. that it caused a lot of negative press (even overseas IIRC), and (maybe) was a catalyst for the plot to replace him as leader with Peacock. I have no references for this and I realise that online references will be hard to find, but until we get references to demonstrate its significance, we need to keep the mention brief. Peter Ballard 07:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Below is the text from the article that User:Blnguyen deleted______________________Lester2 10:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

In August, 1988, Howard created controversy with the following comment about Asian immigration in Australia:

"I do believe that if it is - in the eyes of some in the community - that it's too great, it would be in our immediate-term interest and supporting of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so the capacity of the community to absorb it was greater."

The Labor government sought to embarrass Howard over his Asian remarks by introducing a motion to the parliament opposing the use of race to select immigrants. Howard opposed the motion. In an unusual show of dissent, three Liberal MPs, Ian Macphee, Steele Hall and Phillip Ruddock, defied their leader by crossing the floor and voting with the Labor government. In a rebuke to Howard, Steele Hall addressed the Parliament, saying: "The question has quickly descended from a discussion about the future migrant intake to one about the level of internal racial tolerance. The simple fact is that public opinion is easily led on racial issues. It is now time to unite the community on the race issue before it flares into an ugly reproach for us all."

__________________________________________________________

I'd like to invite all other editors to comment on the above text. Thanks Lester2 10:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hall's comments seem aimed at the level of parliamentary discussion, and labelling them as a "rebuke" to Howard looks like your opinion, rather than Hall's. --Pete 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To Skyring(Pete): If it was the word "rebuke" you didn't like, you could rephrase it without that word. It was certainly not a compliment, though. To Peter Ballard: Nobody is contesting the fact that this event occurred, that a prominent Liberal MP (Steele Hall) stood up in federal parliament and said what he said (quoted above). It seems it got deleted because it was considered too "anti-Howard" for Wikipedia, however, I would have thought that made it more noteworthy. Back in 1988, Howard was having difficulty keeping his MPs under control, with 3 crossing the floor and 1 using his parliamentary speech to criticise his leader. The event caused negative press at the time, and still causes negative press in major newspapers almost 20 years later. It's a shame if historic events like this have to be swept under the carpet for Wikipedia. Lester2 01:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard's racist comments are noteworthy and certainly belong in the article. But a backbancher speaking out against his leader is not noteworthy. In fact the SMH article (which is from August 2006 BTW, not August this year) makes the opposite point to what you're trying to say: backbenchers opposing their leader has always been quite common in the Coalition, until the current (1996 onwards) Howard administration. It makes the point that crossing the floor was quite common under the leaderships of Menzies, Holt, Gorton and Fraser. Why then is it notable that 3 MPs crossed the floor in 1988? Dissent was (and should be) normal. The notable thing is that Howard stopped the dissent after 1996. Peter Ballard 02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard's Asian remarks, plus the Hawke Motion, set off a wave of dissent within Howard's own party. Apart from 3 MPs crossing the floor and 1 critical parliamentary speech, the Motion set off fierce criticism from further afield. From memory, the state Liberal Party Premiers, including Jeff Kennett and Nick Greiner were scathing in their condemnation of Howard's stance on the race Motion. There was also criticism from other Liberals.. Those quotes are still recounted in new news items, and can be easily referenced. It's a chain of events that set off a snowball of dissent and resentment, which I believe eventually led to Howard being replaced as Leader by Andrew Peacock. At the moment, this Wiki article doesn't yet capture the controversy that erupted, all those 19 years ago. Lester2 05:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the Hawke motion was an unimportant sideshow, and the dissent would have happened with or without the Hawke motion, because the problem was Howard's original speech. But my memory could be wrong, just as yours could be. That is why I've been asking all along for commentary (i.e. a secondary source, not a primary source, see WP:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources) on the event. Peter Ballard 06:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Ballard, you may be interested that conservative commentator Paul Kelly says there were 4 dissenting MPs who crossed the floor. Kelly also cites the chain of events (Asian remarks, motion, dissent) as leading to Howard's downfall.[6] Lester2 And what about Howard's so-called "One Australia" policy? 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good find, that's exactly the sort of reference I'm looking for. (p.s. the reason for 4 not 3 is that there were 3 MHRs and 1 Senator). Peter Ballard 07:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Just about every reference on the Asian remarks of John Howard in 1988 refers to the parliamentary vote on Hawke's Race Motion. The fact that someone deleted it from this Wikipedia article is really creating the danger that Wikipedia will look like a whitewash. The facts are indisputable. The notability is indisputable (by the sheer number of published articles from recent times). It's interest-level is indisputable, as you can see from the above quotes that even those who want the information deleted ask lots of questions about the historic event. What's the problem? If the article gets too long, the subject can be expanded into its own article. These details of Howard's 1988 anti-Asian stance are an embarrassment to Howard, which he regrets (he at least regrets the political fall-out). But that's not a good excuse for deleting this information from Wikipedia.Lester2 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing John Howard's remarks on race. Given the later creation of race-based gangs, rapes, riots etc, it looks like he was spot on, even if not politically correct in speaking his mind. His remarks are notable, and nobody disputes that. What I find objectionable is your attempts to include a parliamentary debating tactic in this article, using Howard's notable remarks as a springboard for a series of non-notable attacks. If we included in the articles on prime ministers all the Hansard criticism they copped as opposition leaders, then we would have very long articles indeed. --Pete 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who approve of inclusion of Motion: User:Nick, User:Lester2, User:Peter Ballard, User:hamiltonstone Users against inclusion of Motion: User:Blnguyen, Skyring(Pete). Cheers, Lester2 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VOTE Shot info 04:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Brethren

What is your view of the world Mr Howard I among other Australian find it Frightening that you and some of your other ministers mix with the cult GROUP THE BRETHREN. how can we trust A government that puts its trust in Cult Religions. the brethren have been accused of breaking up families. is this what the liberal government wants. There should be no room in politics for Dangerous religious fanatics like the brethren. We should have Australian values not be religious nutters like the USA.

Mr Howard pensioners should be first above the brethren. how do our pensioners survive in a world of price hikes when you do not put up the pension in accordance to price increases. Liberal has no feeling for pensioner concerns —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.184.178 (talk) 07:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

I think User:121.221.184.178 looks like a new user who is raising the issue of recent newspaper stories that John Howard met with a delegation from the group Exclusive Brethren. The question is whether it should be included in the article or not. I can see a few angles on it. 1: The recent meeting[7] 2:Electoral funding[8][9] 3:Criticism from Tasmanian senators[10]. Any views on whether this is an issue? Lester2 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a biographical article. Ask yourself whether a high school student is going to care in five years time whether John Howard met with a bunch of sect-workers. It's even less notable than the Kevin Rudd stripperama thing. And certainly less interesting. Once again, just because a newspaper reports something doesn't mean we should put it into our encyclopaedia. --Pete 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P A S John Howard the one who's Name rhymes with coward if he looked in the DICTIONARY UNDER COWARD HE WOULD SEE AN IMAGE OF HIMSELF THERE his eyebrows look like those of a camel utter ugliness. and he is responsible for sending our troops to the middle east, saying they have weapons of mass destruction when no weapons have been found.

he is the prim minister that refuses to say sorry to Aboriginal culture, for the stolen generation. And takes an Arrogant attitude when he is proven wrong. Mr Howard is the type of person to say he is right even when the world is apposed to his ideologies.

he is over friendly with the president of the united states, and tried to put his 2 cents worth in when he thought Mr bush would be voted out. he is what i consider a brown noser. he doesnt belive in global warming. and wants to build Neuclear power plants, trying to convince his people this is the right way to in reducing global warming. it is apparent he is not intouch with his people on this issue as he never listens to the concerns of his fellow counterymen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.237.155 (talk) 08:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Welcome :) Please read What Wikipedia Is Not. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Contributions are encouraged but talk pages, such as this, are for discussion of article content, not a forum for political debate.

I agree that the Brethen meeting is not noteworthy --Bren 16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article mostly unreferenced?

As it stands, most of the John Howard article is unreferenced. Why?

There have been countless books, articles, news stories written about every aspect of everything John Howard has ever done. I can't see any excuse why this article, especially one of such great importance (a national leader) is mostly unreferenced opinion written by anonymous sources.

Why do we have separate "Notes" and "References" headings? Under the references heading is a list of books, but not attributed to any particular information in the article. Why can't these be combined into a single Notes or References section? Every paragraph and statement in the article should be clearly attributed.

I find the John Howard article is currently of a very poor standard, because of its lack of sourced material. I think that people should move quickly to reference everything in this article, and if it then cannot be referenced, it should be deleted. Lester2 01:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia content doesn't NEED to be cited or else removed. Citation should be strived for, but no, we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Content can be removed if a majority of ppl agree, not on your own beliefs. Timeshift 02:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding sources is work that an idle pair of hands could easily do. One doesn't need to ask permission to do so. This would add to the quality of the article. Generally information here that is unsourced is also non-controversial. --Pete 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that unsourced = uncontroversial in this article. The article is loaded with assertions that many people may assume to be so, but could easily be challenged. One example (of many) is John Howard was responsible for the housing boom. Many prominent economists would disagree.

The list of books at the end should also be deleted. What kind of reference is that? Just a list of books about John Howard. Maybe it should have been called "Further Reading". There's no way for anyone to be able to verify anything with that, unless they read every one of the books. That list should just be deleted. I want to see every fact and assertion attributed to a source, and if that source is a book, I want to see the page number so I can verify it. Simply creating a list of John Howard books is useless, and should go. Lester2 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, I must contradict you there, wikipedia content does need to be cited or else removed. This is non-negotiable policy. To quote Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."--Yeti Hunter 05:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That "remove it, not tag it" applies to articles about living persons, in which this case, John Howard is a living person. See biographies of living persons policy for more information. Information in other types of articles does not need to be removed straight away. –sebi 05:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I took out the unsourced bits that an editor objected to via fact tags, and Peter Ballard undid my edit, asking for a little "common sense." Peter, please explain what you have in mind. Please be sure to review WP:BLP first. Dicklyon 06:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dick, those tags were put in a few minutes ago, without regard for the printed references at the bottom of the article. Since you are editing a section on 1980s Australian politics, doubtless you are aware that those facts are common knowledge. But since they happened in the 1980s a cite may take a few days to track down. So the common sense approach is to examine the tags and ask yourself whether a "fact" tag is really required; or to allow a few days for an inline citation to be put in. Peter Ballard 06:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Having now read the relevant policies (WP:BLP#Sources, WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy & WP:SELFPUB) I tend to agree with Spebi, Dicklyon, Yeti Hunter and Lester2. It is questionable to include anything which is unsourced/unverified in an article about such a high profile living person. Additionally I'm now a little concerned about all the quotes scattered throughout wikipedia from the Latham Diaries which seems to breach the rule against self-published work (and primary source), I think this should be brought up at the Wikiproject talk page, what do you think? WikiTownsvillian 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the recent campaign by one editor is disruptive, possibly through ignorance. As noted above, all the material is sourced, albeit not with direct footnotes for every single sentence. Perhaps any material seen as controversial could be more directly sourced, possibly by someone thumbing through the books listed as references and publishing a page number? --Pete 23:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Skyring Pete. You said this is disruptive, but you've gone on to suggest exactly the same thing, that all controversial material be sourced. We had unreferenced assertions, for example, that Howard's electoral success was the result of a strong economy. I personally would have given Border Security the credit, and I remember Howard himself saying something similar.

There should be a single section for References, not 2 as we have now (References & Notes). I don't mind the book references, but in an article this size, the book references should be moved to inline text in the article. It's just a minimum standard, otherwise anyone can say whatever they want in this article, and claim the source is somewhere within the 8 books listed at the bottom of page. I think the John Howard article will be a better article when all the controversial statements are properly cited. Regards, Lester2 02:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is your behaviour that is disruptive. This article is watched constantly by many editors, and if there is any material that is unsourced or controversial, it becomes the subject of debate, if not an edit war. If you think something is unsourced, then why don't you source it? This is a co-operative endeavour and you aren't earning much in the way of good will by calling for others to perform work that you could easily do.

I take your point about the print references being overly general, but the point is that they do, in fact, back up a lot of the material that you claim is unsourced. If there was material that was both controversial and genuinely unsourced, it would be swiftly removed. As I say, there are always eyes on this article. --Pete 02:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that Lester2 has been the indirect cause of the disruption. Because, by putting "fact" tags on things, it has attracted wikilawyers (presumably who run bots looking for WP:BLP articles containing "fact" tags) who've applied the rulebook to the letter and deleted the tagged items, even things that could not remotely be considered libelous like the state of the Australian economy in 1985-86. So we need a way to mark things as needing references, without attracting the wikilawyers. Peter Ballard 03:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry the call for controversial statements to be cited is considered disruptive. I put some "fact" tags in. For example, on statements asserting that the Housing Boom arrived because of Howard, or the economy caused his electoral success, and another had a quotation that I thought was slightly inaccurate (I wanted the author to go find the exact quotation). But there were already existing "fact tags" in the article that others had placed months ago, which had been left unattended for some time. The lawyer or bot or whatever deleted them all in one go. The controversial statements were not libelous, but their accuracy was disputed. The aim was to encourage people to cite those controversial statements, not to cause disruption for the sake of disruption. Lester2 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has very serious problems. It is still packed with very contentious uncited statements that shouldn't be there. Many of the statements that I added "FACT" tags to were initially deleted, and then re-added to the article, still uncited. Nobody seems to be putting any effort into adding citations. What's the answer? What are the rules? Lester2 23:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This articles were well referenced till the liberals got to them and edited out what made them look bad i have noted some of my ideas have been taken out what i have written about the HOWARD governments i think Liberals are apposed to the freedom of speech considering a lot of content has been deleted and a lot of it showed Howard's ideologies on the Iraque conflict stop editing our content Liberals you are nothing but worms the lowest of the low —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.132.47 (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest rework of '2001 election campaign' section

I've reinstated the famous campaign slogan "we will decide who comes into this country..." This time, the quote is in full, and cited.

I've deleted Lesters rampant [[WP:SYNTH]| synthesizing] of material yet again. His claim that the quote was a party slogan is another attempt to deliberately mislead. The first reference he uses does not even include the word slogan in its entire article. The second reference is an opinion piece by the discredited extreme leftist Margo Kingston which doesn't even come close to satisfying WP:RS. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 13:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

///EDIT/// The above personal comments "rampant synthesizing" and "attempt to deliberately mislead" are unjustified and unnecessarily personal. All information I add to Wikipedia is fully referenced and accurate.Lester2 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the section of the 2001 campaign needs a re-jiggle. Possibly with sub-headings for Tampa and Children Overboard, if indeed Tampa & Children should be in the '2001 election campaign' section, or an earlier section. I call on people to take a look at this section with the possibility of rearranging it a bit. Lester2 03:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It might help to keep our eye on the ball here. While it is difficult to keep politics out of a politician's life, this is, above all, a biography of a single person. It is not a political history of modern Australia, and there are separate articles that deal with various topics in much greater detail. We need to keep this article on topic. There are many episodes that are important to understanding the life of John Howard, but all we really need for most of the wider issues of recent years is a summary sentence and a wikilink to the relevant article. Our readers may then click through to a more thorough treatment. --Pete 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How could there be an article on John Howard's Prime Ministership without referred to the "we will decide..." statement? It is one of his most defining statements, it's not pushing a POV to include it, it is reporting exact words of the subject person, the Party even used this line in political advertising and Howard has proudly repeated the statement numerous times, this is something the subject person has pushed themselves so the article should recognise this. Also if questions about Prester John are correct then doesn't he have a conflict of interest editing political articles? Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored the famous slogan "We will decide who comes..." again. The edit war over this one, Howard's most famous ever quote, is a good example of how difficult it is to add information to this article. I'm surprised some people consider it a contentious quote, as (like Alec said above) it is a phrase that Howard promoted heavily himself. The Liberal Party took out full page election advertisements in Perth, and that slogan featured in huge text. I wish I had an image of those Perth newspaper ads, as it would compliment this article. Lester2 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for this discussion to be archived. Lester2 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Start Class

Article is start class. I disagree with most of the opinions in it. Should not be B class 58.165.254.80 07:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess all the other opinions than yours are wrong. We'll change it immediately! /sarcasm Michael ^talk 07:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No way a cruft-free, 83-reference, 9.5-screen article is not B class in my opinion. Even the assessment criteria for B allow for some omissions and necessary fixes, after which it can go for GA - although may fail the stability requirement in the immediate time period. Orderinchaos 08:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lies

Looking at Lester2's most recent attempt to get help from the wiki-powers-that-be, I find he wrote, "The latest example is a simple 2 sentence paragraph that I added, about how John Howard in the 1980s voted in the Parliament for immigration to be selected on race."

This is deliberately untrue. Not only has Lester2 failed to characterise his inclusion of Bob Hawke's motion in such terms previously, this description is false,

While I can appreciate that we need editors with a diversity of opinion, and that review of conflicts by uninvolved authorities is a Good Thing, this is going way too far. --Pete 22:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To Skyring (Pete): First, if you disagree with the Bob Hawke Motion paragraph (that you deleted), you could have written this under the existing discussion under that topic, rather than start a new topic titled ""Lies". Second, you could have stated why you think it's untrue, or worked with other editors to reword it, rather than just delete it.Lester2 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about content here, but your behaviour. We can always come to some agreement on content, but the way you operate within the community is something that only you can change. You've already had a couple of minor blocks for edit-warring, and it would be a positive move if you could take them as a gentle warning. --Pete 00:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are not talking about content, then this discussion page is the inappropriate forum for the discussion. Lester2 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you edited other articles beside this one, then you might be correct. Looking at your edit history I see very little besides your edits to this article and complaining about how your edits to this article keep on being reverted and how unfair it all is. --Pete 10:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP reminder

I would like to remind everyone editing this article that the biographies of living persons policy does not only require that material be sourced, but also that any material, especially negative or controversial material, be of significant relevance to the person specifically, not just tangentially related, and must be presented in a strictly neutral manner. Please keep this in mind while editing this article, it is not a forum to express dislike of him or dig up dirt. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been there since it happened without issue - I will not tolerate a "white washing" of Howard's article before the election. This goes especially to Prestor John. From governments 1901 to now, the only article to put government events in to is the Prime Minister of the time's page - see previous Prime Ministers. Timeshift 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift, that the current article is a "whitewash". Important aspects about Howard just get deleted. If we apply the BLP rules properly, a large portion of the entire article would be deleted, as it is uncited and contentious. Seraphimblade's comment about not "digging up dirt" is unclear. I guess it depends on what side of politics you are on, whether you regard it as "dirt". Better questions are: Is the information true? Is it cited? Is it written in a neutral way? Removing "dirt" information seems to be a subjective view. Lester2 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't tolerate a white washing either. We are here to present as good a biography as we can for the benefit of those who seek information. I deleted the AWB para because it just wasn't relevant to a biography of John Howard. This is not to say that the AWB affair isn't notable in itself. Just not here in this biographical article. --Pete 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a better process to have a discussion on this page, before deleting cited information? There didn't seem to be any attempt at a discussion, from what I can see, unless I somehow missed it. I disagree with the action of deleting properly cited info before a discussion has taken place. Otherwise this article can never improve Lester2 02:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair compromise? Btw, I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food _Programme#Oil_for_wheat this] needs updating. Timeshift 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is an unbelievable absurdity that BLP could be used to censor information about AWB from the article. BLP, in case any of you have forgotten, is a policy designed to ensure that false or misleading statements are not made about living people, in order to protect Wikipedia from defamation actions. For example: "Howard assassinated John F Kennedy". It is absolutely beyond contention that BLP cannot be a basis for excluding material about AWB. I will RfC if necessary to prove this point.

Secondly, and more reasonably, should AWB material be deleted because it is not relevant to Howard? I would accept the argument on any one of the following grounds: (1) Howard was never asked a question in Parliament about AWB; (2) Howard was never asked a question in the media about AWB; (3) No mainstream press article, major party politician, or other prominent commentator connected John Howard to the AWB, be it be inference or open questions. (4) Howard had no role managing the federal government's response to the AWB scandal. None of these things are true; mentioning it is clearly relevant. Slac speak up! 04:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

a) Prime Minister pages discuss what happened regarding their government during their time in power. b) Howard established the enquiry and refused calls for a royal commission. I accept that it may not deserve it's own section which is why I added it to the Iraq section of Howard's article, however this was reverted too. It seems the enquiries and $300m kickback gets no mention in Howard's article, there for ages, but removed a few months before the election. What a whitewash. Timeshift 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BLP doesn't come into it for the AWB thing. As for your list of negatives above, you could say exactly the same of thousands of public events and we'd have an enormous article full of crap. The facts show that John Howard had no role in the AWB thing beyond commissioning an inquiry and giving evidence before it - which presumably equated to just that. What makes the AWB special? From what I have seen so far, it looks like the only reason some people want to include it here is to imply the precise opposite of the factual reality. As for the scandal itself, it deserves its own article, and it has that. --Pete 05:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And for someone reading about Australian politics, what link do they click on to read that page? Timeshift 05:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's about fifty links, choose any one you prefer or type something into the search box. --Pete 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The precise opposite of the factual reality? Which part of the scandal - that the AWB was using government money to pay bribes to Saddam at the same time Australian troops were fighting him and the federal government knew about it - wasn't part of factual reality? Slac speak up! 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That John Howard had anything to do with it. This is an article about John Howard, remember? --Pete 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we mention the 1973 oil shock in Whitlam's PM article? After all, he had nothing to do with it... god I hate stupid rationales. Timeshift 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So why did you post it? Or are you saying that the AWB thing is like the oil crisis, and Howard was every bit as much the hapless victim as Whitlam? --Pete 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the Australian Howard Liberal government was inadvertently paying kickbacks to the country we invaded to the tune of $300m. The origins of the oil crisis had nothing to do with Whitlam. Or the recession that effected Hawke/Keating. The fact is, really noteable events, such as the AWB crisis, get noted in the Prime Minister of the time's article. If it's noteable enough and affects the government of the time enough, it should be in the PM article, and usually is, bar a few things like this. Timeshift 22:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me picky, but I still think you've got to show an actual, direct link to John Howard, not a six degrees of separation thing. External events like WW2 or S11 have an effect on governments, but realistically, the AWB was a tree falling in a distant forest for most Australians. --Pete 22:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well we obviously agree to disagree. It holds no more or no less direct relevance to Howard, than say, The Government response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was widely acclaimed in Australia and abroad, including by then Opposition shadow foreign affairs spokesperson and current Opposition leader, Kevin Rudd. But I spose we can all just ignore the convention that's gone on on here forever and a day and only add things that have a direct relationship to the PM himself and not his government of the day. Timeshift 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is having Government information in a biographical article than maybe it would be an easy solution just to create new article specifically on the Howard Premiership 1996-present, we could of course do the same thing for the Keating Premiership and the Hawke Premiership and so forth. A good example would be the UK (eg. Thatcher, Blair and Brown). Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like one heck of a pandora's box to me... PMs 1901 to now arent all as expanded as Howard's is, and I don't know of anyone who's prepared to go through all the PMs piecing out non-PM sentences from PM sentences like pulling egg shell pieces out of the yolk of 100 eggs. Timeshift 00:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe ministerial responsibility means that, just as Peter Beattie is currently held to account for the problems in Queensland Health, so should Howard's article mention the problems that his government has. It's not really a "six degrees of separation" thing if he himself starts up an inquiry and he himself, as I recall, gives a deposition to that inquiry. I also believe that the points I listed above fairly clearly indicate that the issue involved Howard. He wasn't on SIEV-X either, but nobody's pressing to remove children overboard from the article. Besides, the issue of whether he was involved or not was itself under contention - thus it is not NPOV to assert that he had no involvement. Slac speak up! 00:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Timeshift 00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But unconvincing. AWB wasn't a big deal. Howard's role extended to commissioning an enquiry which showed that there was no government wrongdoing. AWB is a private company, listed on the stock exchange, not a government department. Beattie is rightly responsible for his own ministries, but trying to draw a parallel to AWB is yet another long bow. --Pete 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia is constantly work in progress, to use the UK examples they don't have a significant number of the Premierships expanded upon into their own article yet but the recent administrations are quite detailed and are not biographical but a proper encyclopaedic summery of the Government of the day under each leader so it resolves all potential problems of BLP. Also when Australians and political analysts talk about Australian Government in historical terms they talk about the Keating administration or Keating Government, and the Whitlam years, that is not referring to the person or as a term of years; it refers to the national/governmental events that happened under each of their terms as PM, to use the most recent as an example people refer to the Hawke and Keating years as being distinct from each other for obvious reasons, even though it was the same Party in power, very similar policies and a lot of the same Ministers.

There would only be a need to create these articles once one of two things happens, the content about a Premiership becomes inappropriate for a biographical article such as is being argued in this case or secondly the article’s content about the Premiership becomes so dominant in the biographical article that it is disproportionate. Thoughts? WikiTownsvillian 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me this article suffers from WP:Recentism. The articles of previous PMs are mostly pretty good. The John Howard article (IMHO) covers the early years well, and progressively gets worse, because it's full of clutter. I wouldn't object if the entire post-2004 section was deleted and replaced with a single paragraph. We just don't have the historical perspective to determine what is and isn't important enough to go in the recent years of a John Howard article. We could ship it all off to an article called something like "Howard government 2004-2007", though that article could easily be fertile ground for political point scoring. Peter Ballard 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Mostly"? Care to expand? :P Remember that of course the previous PM articles look very balanced and don't suffer from recentism because it's in the past and we have total 20/20 clarity on it. I'm sure Stanley Bruce would also suffer from recentism if we were living in 1928 :P As time moves on, so does the encyclopedia. When Howard leaves, the material will over time be more and more summarised and not focused on a particular time of his government. Although I do suspect with things like Iraq and WorkChoices, there may naturally be a slight tilt toward the latter half. Timeshift 02:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, here's a concrete proposal: Create an article called something like "Howard government 2004-2007". Ship all the 2004-2007 stuff there. Then we can split two separate debates: the new stuff (which is constantly added, albeit intermittently); and polishing all the pre-2004 - where we have historical perspective and I think there'd be broad agreement on what does and doesn't belong in the article. Then I think we'd get a fairly good "John Howard" article. The 2004-2007 stuff will be a constantly changing mess wherever we put it, so why not move the mess somewhere else? Peter Ballard 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

...isn't that what I just suggested? Premiership of John Howard. WikiTownsvillian 02:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. I'm suggesting only a separate article for 2004-2007. Peter Ballard 02:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"AWB is a private company". . . Enforcing the single desk. Remind me whose money was being used to pay bribes again (hint: it wasn't private money)? Next you'll be telling us that Howard had Mark Vaile over for tea once but never had much to do with the bloke. I'm sorry, if there is a dispute over whether or not AWB is relevant to Howard's Prime Ministership, or a big deal, or whatever arbitrary criteria we're using to blithely dissociate him from it, then we have to mention the sources that talk about not-a-big-deal things like the Volker inquiry, the Four Corners investigation, the front page headlines, the media and parliamentary criticism, etc, etc etc. We're not allowed to make a judgment on whether it was a big deal - we have to let the sources speak for us. And they devote quite a bit of attention to it. Slac speak up! 09:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying AWB wasn't notable, or a political event. AWB and the Cole Enquiry have their own properly sourced articles. I just can't see the relevance to this article.

Commenting on proposals above, I like the idea of having a series of articles describing Federal politics during various periods. Whether they cover decades or government terms, such articles could include events that have little or no relevance chere. The Peter Reith phonecard thing, for instance. Or the Mark Latham meltdown. --Pete 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re AWB:. I spent 5 seconds Googling the subject, and the first item I see from NineMSN opens with this line:

The AWB scandal has engulfed the highest level of Australian government, with John Howard facing the prospect of becoming the first prime minister in 23 years to face an inquiry with royal commission powers.[11].

To say the AWB scandal didn't rock the Howard government (or the PMs office itself) is not true. It would therefore be amiss to not include a paragraph on it, with a link to a full article about the subject elsewhere.

I also note that people editing the article should follow courtesy guidelines before deleting other peoples' work without proper explanation or without immediately starting a discussion about it with the disputed text displayed at the top of the discussion. Because this is properly cited text (it's not profanity, vandalism, libel or utter stupidity), the text should have been left in the article and discussion initiated first. Dialogue & consultation = courtesy Lester2 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Rocking the Howard government"? Really? Both you and NineMSN might be better suited to writing a tabloid rather than an encyclopaedia. Nobody disputes that Howard commissioned an inquiry and gave evidence to it. That's the beginning and end of government involvement in the doings of this private company. About the only notable thing about it is that the PM gave evidence before an inquiry, and NineMSN's hyperbole aside, I can't see that this is notable enough to warrant inclusion in this article. It is, of course, entirely appropriate in the Cole Inquiry article. --Pete 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The systemic deletion of all reference to the AWB scandal from this article about John Howard's years in government is a terrible shame. The article has become a cleansed history of the Howard government. Lester2 23:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"A terrible shame". If the AWB thing had involved the government in wrongdoing, you might have something. The fact is that the government's involvement began afterwards, when Howard responded to the scandal by launching an inquiry, which cleared him and his government. That makes it non-notable for this article. This is an article about John Howard, not the AWB. --Pete 02:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The election slogan: "We will decide who comes to this country........."

The slogan used in the 2001 campaign is Howard's most famous ever quote. It was used in full-page election advertisements in Perth newspapers. It was repeated again and again throughout the campaign.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to list it as his election slogan in Wikipedia. Some want it to say "He was heard to say" or "he was quoted as saying". Someone else wanted it paraphrased into "Australia says who comes...".

I'm very surprised that this famous election slogan is disputed. It now has 3 references attached to it, for the disbelievers who either don't think the quote ever existed, or for those who think it was never used as an election slogan. Lester2 03:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources say it was an election slogan, I think you are having difficulty because it is a just a quote, a once off, it never was any official "slogan". Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2nd & 3rd newspaper articles refer to it has Howard's election slogan. Please stop deleting or reverting everything. Lester2 04:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be acceptable to say that Howard used the quote repeatedly as a theme. Some people may think that "slogan" is too official...because in some campaigns, they use the same tagline all the time, whereas in 2001, I am sure he probably used other stuff like "keeping interest rates low." Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that was 2004 :) according the 2001 article the Gov was on the run on economic issues! Just goes to show how much things can change. WikiTownsvillian

The article says it was 2001. And no, it wasn't an election slogan. These sort of taglines are carefully crafted; a quote out of a speech or interview doesn't automatically become a campaign slogan, no matter how significant it might be. --Pete 10:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was definitely their main slogan, and there are references which prove it. Perhaps not an official slogan, but the most widely used. It was in their last minute posted out election material, and was the largest (and perhaps only) slogan on their posters outside polling booths. To reduce it to "just a quote, a once off" (as Prester John says) is bordering on dishonest. Peter Ballard 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree there. It was a slogan, now matter which way you look at it. The line featured heavily in print and television advertising. Even the refs provided say it was a slogan. Recurring dreams 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a source, please? I don't recall it being used as a campaign slogan, but the thing is, we can't use ourselves as sources. --Pete 01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard's diverse country, Weekend Australian (Australia), December 17, 2005 His 2001 election slogan -- ``We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come -- was aimed at people who didn't live here at the time.

PM eases stance on detainees, Australian, The (Australia), March 23, 2005 Mr Howard exploited community angst over refugees at the so-called Tampa election of 2001 by campaigning on the memorable slogan: ``We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come.

Truth goes overboard, Courier Mail, The (Brisbane, Australia), August 21, 2004, Author: Peter Charlton In an election campaign where the slogan was ``We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come, the ``children overboard claim was used as propaganda.

Recurring dreams 01:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact after the Liberals realised how effective Tampa had been in wedging Labor, it became one of their their primary campaign slogans. Recurring dreams 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, that looks good. Thanks. --Pete 01:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the original 3 references were not considered adequate. Shouldn't the same level of scrutiny be applied to the rest of the article? Lester2 04:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, a lot of the article is already adequately referenced by the books listed. It's not like we're dealing with some garage band bignoting themselves. If you have any specific questions, why don't you raise them here?

Possibly the difficulties you are having are not so much a matter of sources, as finding sources to justify applying a certain slant to already accepted facts, or finding sources to make mountains out of molehills. --Pete 04:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's Howard's most famous line, which was not quoted in full before I added it, so if you think that's a "mountain out of a molehill" or "applying slant", you could use that same argument about any sentence in the article. Lester2 06:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored the famous quote, with quotation marks, and its description as a slogan, as per the long discussion above. Lester2 02:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ARGHHHHH!!! After all the long discussion we had about the use of the word "slogan", I thoughgt this was long settled. Now someone has changed it to say "slogan is a journalists' claim. Journalist qualification added The phrase was used in election advertising, therefore it is a slogan. Why do we even bother discussing anything on this talk page???!!!! Lester2 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro rework

I adjusted the intro. The original version basically followed chronological order: He is prime minister, before that he had various roles as minister etc etc.

What I did was devoted the first 3 paragraphs to his Prime Ministerial role. This is the most important aspect. Paragraph 4 (which was previously paragraph 2) returns to the brief outline of his former roles.

I felt the previous strict chronological order, while having merits, dropped the subject of his Prime Ministership too early. See old intro and new intro Lester2 21:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. An intro should be both a summary and the journalistic "inverted pyramid", placing vthe most important facts first. --Pete 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is paragraph 4 necessary in the intro? It reads:

Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Howard served as Treasurer in the government led by Malcolm Fraser from 1977–1983[2] and was Leader of the Liberal Party (thus also Leader of the Coalition Opposition) from 1985–1989 through the 1987 federal election against Bob Hawke. He was elected again as Leader of the Opposition in 1995.

I wonder if it's too much detail for the intro? Take a look at the page again, to see it in context. Obviously, if someone becomes P.M., they have had a political life prior to that. The following sections detail the political history. I prefer to see an intro that quickly answers the question "Who is this guy?", and save the rest for the history sections. I will leave it there, but it's just a suggestion Lester2 05:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for this discussion to be archived Lester2 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard's secret ancestry revealed

I would like to see the ‘Early Life’ section edited because at the moment it gives the false impression that John Howard sprang from hard-working stock. The reality is that John Howard has carefully concealed his family history and distorted that history to suit his own political ends.

The second paragraph should at the very least read: “Howard grew up in the Sydney suburb of Earlwood. His father and paternal grandfather, Walter Howard, were both veterans of the First AIF in World War I. After the war they engaged in ‘dummying’ for W. R. Carpenter and Company Ltd. They later ran a petrol station ....” etc.

David Marr from the Sydney Morning Herald researched this secret history which could have landed Howard’s father and grandfather in court for breaches of regulations governing the sale of ex-German plantations in New Guinea to Australian ex-servicemen. The following website should be noted to allow readers to fully assess the extent to which John Howard has waxed lyrical about the family petrol station whilst remaining silent about how the family was able to afford it in the first place. According to David Marr’s research Lyall Howard was very flush with funds in 1927 shortly after losing his job at CSR!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-secret-howard-plantations/2006/06/10/1149815326249.html

I was in Samoa when this story broke in 2006. This secret history is viewed with a lot of cynicism in the South Pacific. Stories like this from the colonial past still strike a raw nerve. It is worthy of inclusion in the Howard biography in order to give greater balance to John Howard’s history and his manipulation of facts to suit political ends. John and James 14:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's a good example of how a seemingly non-controversial coverage of Howard's father is actually highly controversial. Lester2 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Info now included in article Here. Cheers, Lester2 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is good to see Lester2 and Pete enjoying themselves... As Skyring/Pete reminder us on the talk page on another occasion, this is meant to be a biography of John Howard. However, it seems to me that both Lester2's rather assertive version of the 'dummying' events and pete's approach of omitting it altogether do not necessarily do this episode justice. The Errington and van Onselen biography as i recall rightly points out that there is a complex interplay of values and realities in Howard's upbringing that might be expected to play out in his public life as politician, leader and prime minister. At the same time, many (not particularly in Wikipedia I hasten to add) seem to embrace the PNG incident with misguided enthusiasm, particularly in terms of the strength with which they link it to John Howard, rather than to his father and grandfather, who were the players (along with many many other returned servicemen) in this story. Yes, it appears John himself might have finalised one piece of wayward paperwork in 1962, but surely, if this event is to be included, it is to highlight the economic and social circumstances in which Howard grew up. Anything more is a bit of a long bow. I dont want to get involved in an edit war here, so i will leave it at that for now... hamiltonstone 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi hamiltonstone, thanks for your comment. There was already extensive coverage of Howard's father in the article, so it seemed amiss not to mention the copra empire they owned. I didn't include it in the article, but John Howard has often cited his family's poor finances (there's even one quote in the newspaper article above), so it contradicts Howard's claim of poorness when his family owned over £100,000 ($4 million in today's money) in a "tropical empire". I thought a lot about whether to use the word "scam", but the government agencies of the day used similar language, as do today's newspaper reports. But if you can find a better way to word the event, please go ahead. Cheers, Lester2 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a passing mention plus the Ref (rather like the passing comment on the dispute over Rudd's early life at the Kevin Rudd article), but remember this is the John Howard article not the Lyall Howard article. Calling it a "scam" is not NPOV, because David Marr is not NPOV. And my understanding of the arrangement is that they did not really "own" the £100,000. Peter Ballard 02:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

New version with Peter Ballard's suggestions here Lester2 03:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, someone has deleted all of the info about the Howard Family's New Guinea plantations. Unfortunately, the person chose not to partake in this discussion. The info has been replaced with a quote that begins with "I was brought up in a home...". That quote was criticised in the original Sydney Morning Herald reference that User 'John & James' provided above. The SMH was critical of the quote in light of the plantation info that recently surfaced that contradicted that quote. Instead, the reference has been changed to a much earlier, uncritical one, which was published before the plantation issue was known. Lester2 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, the problem is that while the suspicions - and that is all they are - may belong in articles about Howard's father and uncle, they have no relevance here in this article. --Pete 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP some sources (third party) would be an advantage to show the notability for inclusion. Shot info 02:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This incident has no business being in this article. Actions taken by relatives are irrelevant to JH, especially when taken before he was even born. Like Shot info says, there has to be third party sources asserting its relevance to JH the person. Trying to throw mud at his ancestors in the hope that some sticks to him is just not going to work. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 22:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, you could use the argument that this info is about his father, therefore has no relevance to the article. But, why isn't that argument used equally for all the other family info about Howard? This is where the POV slant comes in. Everyone welcomes the glory statements about Howard's relatives being war veterans, etc etc, but any controversial info is deleted. In the last version that was deleted here, it was simply a mention that they owned copra plantations with hundreds of local workers. It didn't go into the detail of the government investigations. I don't know how the WP:BLP applies simply to a mention of their ownership of plantations. If multiple references are required to prove notability, that's OK, but it should also apply to the whole article.Lester2 01:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove all and any info that isn't "contentious" per BLP. Info that stays in (what you call "glory") the wikipedia community regards as "uncontentious" and per policy, it tends to stay in. Your problem isn't with the article, nor with individual editors, it's with Wikipedia. Shot info 01:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Contra Prester John's POV, it is relevant knowledge that adds to the overall body of research about a significant historical figure. It provides a more nuanced insight in Howard's background and immediate family. It paints a fuller picture than otherwise achieved by the reference's absence. It's inclusion in the article is reasonable and appropriate. It's exclusion creates a perception of bias. --Bren 07:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If readers want information on Howard's father, then they can click on the link to the Lyall Howard article, where the copra plantation material is relevant. --Pete 09:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The same argument could be used to justify removing from the article all but a reference to Lyall as Howard's father. The key is striking the right information balance. Including a general reference to his father's plantation, in a sentence about his grandfather and father's occupations, meets this criterion. Many Wikipedia articles summarise facts that may be found in greater detail in other articles. This is neither unusual nor undersirable. --Bren 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion, I see three names in favour:

• JohnandJames, an editor whose entire edit history consists of one edit - to this talk page a week ago.
• Edit warrior Lester2, who replies to "JohnandJames" by saying, "Yes, I agree.". Lester2's edit history is pretty much confined to John Howard.
• Brendan.lloyd, an editor of two day's standing, who shares the exact same political views as the other two.

The whiff of rat is readily apparent now. --Pete 11:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on that allegation, I also voiced in favour of a passing reference. Peter Ballard 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A thorough reading of the above indicates 6 users supported inclusion of at least a small, sourced mention of the New Guinea plantations in the John Howard article: John and James, Lester2, Hamilton Stone, Peter Ballard, Shot_info, Brendan.lloyd. The following 2 users rejected any such inclusion: Prester John, Skyring. A concensus for inclusion seems apparent.

The information quality and relevance is the important factor here, not aspersions about political beliefs of editors. Skyring/Pete, please assume good faith, avoid mischaracterising other editors' actions, and avoid biting new contributors. --Bren 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Using sockpuppets for the purposes of manipulating content discussions is gaming the system. I think that there's enough evidence of that to justify raising the matter here. Lester2, over his brief career, has shown a willingness to raise RfCs and other wikilawyering tactics in support of getting his own way on content. I also note that he frequently takes responsibility for anon contributions, indicating that he signs in and out of his account rather than remaining logged in. Without CHECKUSER verification, of course I cannot be certain that the three account names I mention are operated by the same entity, but, as I say, I think there's enough prima-facie evidence to make the topic a subject for discussion here. --Pete 17:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Here's my reply to User:Skyring(Pete): The last version you deleted was a single sentence that only mentioned they owned plantations. I don't know how it can be considered to include "political beliefs". We mention that J.H's father was in the war, acquired plantations, and ran a petrol station, so it gives a brief background of JH's situation and past. I made a comment on an RfC, but I don't know why you condemned that, as it shows I'm attempting to resolve this deletion issue with negotiation. I'm not counter-deleting any referenced additions made by you. The John Howard discussion page is not the place to make claims that I'm a sockpuppet. Such claims may succeed in discrediting your fellow Wikipedians, but if you were really serious about it you'd submit a report to the Admin noticeboard, rather than post it all over the J.H discussion page. I ask you to stop deleting referenced content, as deleting overrides a consensus of editors on the discussion page.Lester2 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Two misrepresentations in one reply. Thanks. I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet, Lester2, so it is interesting to see that you took it as such. Nor was I saying that the copra plantation thing was political - I noted that you and Bren had exactly the same political views. Again I make the point that using multiple accounts to create the appearance of consensus is something frowned upon by the community. Seeing as how you rarely edit any other article but this one, I can't think of a better place to raise my suspicions than in a discussion about consensus. A CHECKUSER request has been made in the appropriate manner. --Pete 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Skyring(Pete) said: "The whiff of rat is readily apparent now", and then said "I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet". Every reasonable reader can see you accused your fellow Wikipedians of being sockpuppets by making the above very public announcements. It was completely unnecessary to make such a public announcement on one of the busiest discussion boards, in an obvious attempt to smear the reputation of others in the most public way possible. Now you have finished publicly humiliating others, I ask you to humble yourself and apologise to Brendan, John & James, and myself. You were the one who called for a vote. You lost. Accept it. Stop continually deleting content when you don't have consensus to do so. Lester2 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic, but please be so very good as to provide a diff showing that I accused you of being a sockpuppet. As you cannot, you might like to admit that you got it wrong. So far as I can see, there has been no CHECKUSER performed, or at least the result has not yet been publicly notified. I have voiced my suspicions, based on the record of yourself and others, as I am entitled to do, and I suggest, once again, that you stay calm and let wikiprocess work.

As for consensus, this is not a matter of voting on the truth. Including the material about the copra dummying on the John Howard page is not appropriate because it is simply not relevant to John Howard. To make the claim (or even the implication on a BLP page) that John Howard's childhood was not quite the I was brought up in a home that sort of believed in the values of hard work and honesty... Christian idyll that he claims, based on the dummying of his father, you need to show two things:

• That the dummying was illegal or dishonest, and
• That John Howard knew about it during his childhood.

The reference provided does not give any evidence for this. It is a journalist raising his suspicions, something you apparently have strong feelings against. An interesting story, but even he notes, The administrator kept on the case for a few more months, discussing it with the new treasurer, Ted Theodore, but finally - after another confrontation with the custodian - declared himself "satisfied with the bona fides of the Howards". You are asking Wikipedia to hint at or imply something for which we do not have a source, and policy on this is quite clear. This isn't something we can vote on. --Pete 00:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The vote is complete.

• Users supporting a mention of the plantation: 'John&James', 'Lester2', 'Peter Ballard', 'Bren'
• Users against any mention: Prester John, Skyring(Pete)
• Users with provisos: 'hamiltonstone' (approves if used to highlight to J.H's economic circumstances) 'User:Shot info' unclear, but asks for more references

I therefore add the content to the article.Lester2 04:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like you to address my argument above, especially where I point out that inserting this material is against wikipolicy. Also see the RfC below. --Pete 04:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User:Skyring(Pete). We simply mentioned the Howard family owned plantations, just like we mention they went to war and owned a garage. Why do we need to prove anything was illegal, when we didn't say in the article that anything was illegal? The most recent version is here before User:Blnguyen took it upon himself to delete it.

To User:Skyring(Pete), you demanded consensus, then asked for a vote, the vote went against you, now you say it's not a subject that can be voted on. Then you tried to cast aspersions on myself and other Wiki editors by claiming we are sockpuppets. I think it's time for you to apologise.Lester2 05:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not particularly notable at all. One guy has uncovered this stuff and isn't the mian things in the family which sticks out to most other historians. Secondly, most of the people supporting its inclusion have very few edits to WP to say the least. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, I read through the newpaper opinion pieces, and really there is nothing in there that is really substanciated other than a bunch of words. I would probably suggest 2 things. 1 - is the source really reliable (per WP:RS) and 2 - is it really notable?. Now to answer my own question, I don't really think the opinion pieces tabled to date are really reliable. Does this information appear in (say) a formal publication (like Howard's recent bio) or some other document? Opinion columns in newspapers aren't really RS per WP requirements. But with regards to 2, I agree with Lester that it is worth having in, but not at the cost of the current poor references. However given the nature of BLP, "facts" aren't always included in articles especially minor trivia and non-notably points of contention. This is why the consensus is needed for this particular piece of info, and why I'm calling for a superior source to prove notability and establish consensus. BTW, these are all items that other BLP editors are aware of, and tread wearily around :-) . Shot info 05:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Chill guys. It's only Wikipedia. However some handy information... WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VOTE. Shot info 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See the below RfC for detailed comments on reliability (accuracy), notability (significance), and relevance of the proposed plantation inclusion. Meanwhile, Skyring/Pete, now that the dust has settled on yours and Prester John's baseless allegation of sockpuppetry by me and Lester2, a full retraction and sincere apology from you both would go a long way towards acting in good faith. --Bren 07:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Contentious Statements, List #1

Below is the first list of contentious statements (more to come later). Some of these were previously given FACT/citation tags, which were removed.

Opposition Years

Howard himself compared the possibility of a political comeback to "Lazarus with a triple bypass".

This uncited quote is wrapped in quotation marks, but the quote doesn't look exact to me. EDIT: Reffed it myself, with full quote. Lester2 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

First term: 1996-1998

Prudent economic management remained the government's strongest claim throughout its term

Who's opinion was this? This statement was previously deleted, but someone has reinstated it without citation.

economic growth remains an essential element in its popularity

This statement was also previously deleted, but has returned, with a deliberately spurious citation that mentions nothing about government popularity.

Same comment for both of these: a fairly widely made claim, obviously a reference would be good (and not hard to find). Peter Ballard 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

heavily restrict the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles

Sentence neglected to say that a loophole allowed semi-automatic handguns to flourish

Not a neglect, just a minority viewpoint I'd have thought. Peter Ballard 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The strictness of his (ministerial conduct) code was enforced when a succession of seven of his ministers... were required to resign

Positive spin on a scandal.

The 1998 Election Campaign"Where DC was elected PM"

Nor Eric

The 1998 election campaign was dominated by two issues.

It doesn't say what issues. GST & Xenophobia, maybe?

A result of an incomplete edit. Fortunately ABC still has pretty complete coverage online at http://www.abc.net.au/election98/news/diary/default.htm so rewriting should be easy. Peter Ballard 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(One Nation's) national campaign was poorly administered

This uncited comment is someone's opinion.

It's everyone's opinion. And a solid fact. Margo Kingston devoted an entire book to it (which she was good enough to autograph for me when I hunted her down in the PG) called "Off the Rails". You'd have to be completely ignorant of Oz politics or a total one-eyed One Nation zealot to think otherwise. This isn't remotely contentious. --Pete 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Term: 1998-2001

Australia lead a peacekeeping/policing force

What does "lead" mean? They were at the front of the procession? They showed the way? It's probably more accurate to say Australia provided the major component to the United Nations UNMISET operation.

Australia was there before the UN got involved. --Pete 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

INTERFET was mandated by the UN, but led by Australia: Archived ADF site. INTERFET was preceeded by UNAMET (mostly evacuated by 20 Sep 1999), and succeeded by UNTAET on 28 Feb 2000. PalawanOz 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Meg Lees... increased the complexity of the GST

Unnecessary and irrelevant jab at political opponents.

Or in this case, political partners. Actually, it's a plain statement of fact. The GST was made more complex because the alternative was that it wouldn't be passed at all. In hindsight, this probably ensured the downfall of the Democrats, because NSD was spurred into action, and her leadership of the Democrats could be likened to Hanson's hand at the helm of One Nation. Howard must have chuckled for years over that one. --Pete 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

first home buyers grant (was) feeding a housing boom

What's a "boom"? More house construction? Higher prices? Ambiguous term. Some leading economists believe the grant simply caused prices to rise by the same amount.

Too minor, I'd suggest deleting that sentence. Peter Ballard 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

the resentment for the GST fell on the Democrats

Another uncited opinion.

And irrelevant to the Howard article, I'd suggest. Delete. Peter Ballard 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2001 Election Campaign

Border protection... Kim Beazley and the Labor opposition offered half-hearted support

Another uncited opinion, and "half-heated" is meaningless. Labor asked for some minor amendments. Then the legislation was passed by both parties unanimously.

It wasn't what you might call loud and passionate opposition, now was it? --Pete 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be reworded. IIRC, Labor's problem was they initially opposed it, allowing Howard to paint them as weak and vacillating. Peter Ballard 12:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

most commentators agree that national security was the decisive issue in the 2001 election

3 spurious references supplied. The first 2 don't mention the term "national security". The third says it was "a" (ie one of many) decisive issue.

The references support the claim that Tampa was the decisive issue of the 2001 election. Someone went and changed the text to "national security". Peter Ballard 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

the biggest swing to an incumbent government since 1966

No citation supplied for this claim.

_____________________________________ Lester2 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the above list is to attract people to properly cite the claims, change the wording, or delete the claims. There may not be much point defending each claim in the Discussion section. It's better to change it in the article, or remove it. Lester2 23:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your list above is little more than a collection of factual statements. I really can't see how you could claim them as controversial, and while I welcome the removal of rubbish, your campaign against a swag of long-established material isn't helpful. Why don't you accept that Howard, like any other politician, has had some wins and some losses and our duty is to provide an overall summary of his life and career. All of the stuff you mention can be found in the various published biographies, listed as references.

Trust me, there are enough "Howard-haters" looking at this article to ensure the removal of anything that is richly positive or poorly sourced, and that's the way it should be. We aren't in the business of publishing puffery, nor of hacking Howard. Somewhere in the middle is about right. --Pete 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you've obviously got a lot of time on your hands, Lester2, why don't you supply the references yourself? Peter Ballard 02:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the snarkiness of that comment. I guess my point is that the majority of those (not all, but the majority) are pretty obviously true (or need only a slight reword), and shouldn't be too hard to find references for. I do agree, however, that they all should have in-line references. Just saying "it's in one of the listed biographies" is not sufficient. (I don't like it at all, although the WP style guide says it's OK for uncontroversial stuff only). Peter Ballard 12:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeees, the fact that a reference is in a book somewhere isn't really good enough, but it's certainly good enough to prevent speedy removal without much discussion, especially for material that is widely acccepted. I'm not happy with this sort of technicality being used for a campaign to "blackwash" Howard - or any other person or subject - and then being taken to "higher courts". Obviously the remedy for the technicality is to look up the sources, and I see the failure by Lester2 to do so, when he has demonstrated that he can do good research on material that he wants to see as part of the article, as being not quite the done thing.

Having said that, it may be that he is using me as an example, something which would make WP in general a lot more interesting if I should ever be held up as the perfect editor. --Pete 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Discourteous Deletions / Wikiquette alert

I have started a Wikiquette alert about discourteous deletions, and have cited examples from User:Blnguyen and User:Skyring.

There are Wikipedia:Etiquette guidelines, and also guidelines at regarding deletion of 'useful content'. By 'useful content', we are talking about content that is factual and cited, though some editors may feel it does not belong in the article for some other reason.

I don't expect everyone to agree with the information, but simply hitting the delete button is not the courteous way to deal with it. Other alternatives are to move the information, or to modify the sentences and wording.

The correct way to deal with such information is listed here: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...

My aim is to encourage everyone to follow those guidelines. Thanks Lester2 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we still allowed to use the "t-word" here? --Pete 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lester2. It seems like some people own the page and therefore decide what is relevant. Yet as I understand WP, nobody owns a page, and sourced information should be discussed instead of simply removed. I found out as well that you shouldn't bite a newcomer. We newcomers are encouraged to be bold, and this boldness seems to be not welcomed on the John Howard page. The fact that we include information here is because we deem it relevant, related and worth mentioning. --Lord Chao 12:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is about inclusion of material and justness of fact tags. Please add a summary here about what the dispute is about.

I'm quite lost as to the exact nature of the dispute. Does the present version of the article contain disputed information - if so, which items - or is the dispute entirely about adding material which presently is not mentioned at all in the article? VisitorTalk 07:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Statement by Lester2
Hi. I previously added "Fact"/citation tags. Someone subsequently deleted those sentences. Later, others restored the same sentences again. There are currently large passages of controversial uncited text which remain which should not be there.

The issue came to a head a week or two ago, when I added some tags.(The uncited information was just restored again). But since then there seems to have been little effort by those who want the controversial material to remain, to cite it. I feel it's extremely important for an article like this to be fully cited.

Most of the effort here seems to be devoted to deleting any new information which is added, even when it comes with triple references from major sources. When new cited information is added, it gets deleted within seconds, not because it is libelous, but because the deletor does not like it. Any attempt to reinstate the content is met with the same speedy deletion, often unexplained.

A good example is the "Bob Hawke Motion" described above. Discussion was started (not by the person who deleted it). Many other editors thought the subject matter should stay (some thought it should be worded slightly differently). Stalemate results. The deletor wins. Nobody was willing to partake in mediation.(Can this Call For Comment make a decision and resolve the "Bob Hawke Motion" text, please)

I feel the people who most commonly delete content are: Skyring(Pete), Blnguyen, and User:Prester John. I don't recall any discussions initiated by these editors at the time they deleted the content.

So what's the answer? The process of adding information slows to a crawl and becomes impossible if every sentence must go to an arbitration committee. The campaign of immediately deleting new material is very successful, as it avoids the need to discuss the content, and successfully keeps new content from being added. Lester2 01:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Recurring dreams

You've done a great job on this page. It must be remembered though that we are building on a controversial, already developed page, and some level of discussion on new material is necessary. Although this process can be frustrating, it means that the quality of the pages are maintained. Good job on reworking the lead, by the way.

Yes. I thought at first that you must have been lax in your password security. It is in the nature of articles like this that the original purity of tone becomes lost in a welter of changes and minor rewording and corridor scuffles over whether something is a slogan or a quote or a monday green. Taking a section firmly in hand and making it stand up straight is something WP needs more off. IAR. --Pete 04:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement (reply) by User:Lester2
Thanks for the compliments, R.D & Skyring(Pete) regarding the rejigging of the intro in a different order.

I wanted to make a suggestion, regarding the addition of totally new content, in regard to all the deletions that have been going on. The Wikipedia has some guidelines about the deletion of content here:

Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes#Deleting...

These are good courtesy guidelines. I'd like to ask the editors who most commonly delete content in this article if they would agree to the above guidelines about courtesy and deleting content, especially Skyring(Pete), Blnguyen, User:Prester John.

I'd like to propose that we all agree to those guidelines (above). I think it would go a long way to avoiding edit wars and other trouble. I want to declare my support for those courtesy guidelines about deleting. Are there any other users who would like to agree to adhere to those courtesy guidelines? Lester2 04:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:WikiTownsvillian
I would again like to raise my concerns, which to this point have gone unanswered, regarding the possible conflict of interest of Prester John. I hope it is not inappropriate that I use Lester's Request for Comment to raise this again. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 06:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Prester John
I would like to make three points. 1) I agree to abide by consensus in releation to material that is chosen to be deleted. I believe this same guideline goes for material that is to be added. Content added must have the aproval of the majority. 2) Editors must refrain from trying to install content by stealth (see this edit) by using an incorrect edit summary. Let's at least try to be honest. 3) is for WikiTownsvillian. What are you talking about? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to by User:Lester2 Hi Prester. Thanks for joining the discussion. You said that content should be added with prior approval, just like the proposal to delete in a courteous way. I'd be interested to know what the arbitrator of this Call for Comment has to say about this, as to how it could be implemented, or if it is workable. Regarding my edit (you link to), the formatting of the quotation marks was changed, but it didn't look like the tag was displaying properly (tag marks were visible iin the article). When I realised the issue was the words "now-famous" to describe the quotation ("We will decide...), I removed the words "now-famous" myself as a compromise. Cheers, Lester2 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Responding to RfC:I've read the remarks above, along with the partial list of contentious statements posted by Lester2 in the section immediately preceding that.

• First, let me say that the overuse of fact-tags is something that all of us should deplore. In particular, tagging large numbers of statements that are hardly contentious - "Howard continues to be popular among those who think Australia should restrict immigration", to choose an imaginary example - is counterproductive and poor user behaviour.
• That being said, if the sort of statements listed above is a representative sample of those tagged, they could certainly benefit from being cited.
• However, I suggest that Lester aid the process by citing some of them himself. "Lazarus with a triple bypass", for example, is very easy to cite to reliable sources.[12], [13], [14].
• Statements like "economic growth remains an essential element in its popularity" are particularly difficult to justify, and should not be in the article at all, if objected to, unless more than one decent source is provided. I can find several citations for the initial participation in the Iraq War as an essential element to his popularity in 2003, but "John Howard"+"growth"+"popularity" throws up practically nothing significant. This sort of fluffiness is exactly what fact-tags are there for.
• I see that, for example, the response to a request for citation about One Nation's shambolic campaign is "you'd have to be pretty ignorant...". Well, some of our readers will be. And they might not believe we are any more informed. So we cite even that, if required. Here again, perhaps Lester could meet the opposition halfway by offering to cite some of it.
• As you point out, either things are easy to cite, or they are pretty difficult. Overuse occurs when statements obvious to a majority of readers are tagged or required to be taken out. I'd like to hear of examples where that was done, if any.
• Finally, if the question is whether a particular fact is skewed, citation will not help. In particular, if I can find a citation saying "Howard is in danger of losing the political cushion of a prosperous economy" (which I have), the more relevant discussion is: is this a majority view? is it so important a fact that it has to be in the bio? Is the implication that, thus, a prosperous economy was central to his previous re-election OR? Fact-tagging will not solve these deeper questions. Hornplease 02:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I also came from the RFC posting. User:Hornplease is spot-on, some of these tags are valid, some are unnecessary, and most would be remarkably easy to source is someone would just do the footwork. Italia^vivi 15:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

An Admin needs to allow an edit to this article to bring to peoples attention that most of the article was rewritten by Howards Staff to make him look good before the upcoming election. NineMSN article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.44.124.151 (talk) 21:56, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

In the Sydney Morning Herald it was reported that various Government articles including this one and others such as Peter Costello were being edited by "staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the Government" - PM's staff edited Wikipedia--Mikecraig 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Even in today's Sunrise. "in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet use a network with IP addresses in the range of 210.193.176.0-159."203.49.196.163 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Generally the PM and Rudd are on the front pages on a daily basis. Everything that is on their articles: IRaq, economy, TAmpa, GST etc, was in the front pages for a month at least. This thing isn't even on the front pages for one day. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added COI tag so that readers can identify that the article may not be presented in a neutral voice Gnangarra —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:41, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

I find this odd (the media questioning), for when one uses Wikiscanner to check these ranges, this article doesn't appear...[15]??? Shot info 00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Another link to Wikiscanner [16]. Methinks some journo has seen the CIA story [17] and decided to "make up some news". Shot info 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to the SMH front page headline which should be viewable on that URL for at least a week.

As regulars to this page would know, I've always been against the deletion of reliable cited information. In most cases, the facts are not in dispute at all, but the information gets deleted because someone doesn't like it, with the excuse that the information is not relevant. My personal opinion is that useful information should be retained. If the article grows too big, then expand it into sub-articles. Lester2 01:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the facts. The article says there was a biased edit done on "June 29 last year". I've gone looking and I can't find it. It also says there was an edit to the Peter Costello article on June 28 this year, but that was simply vandalism removal so was not inappropriate. Looks to me like papers have just taken a press release from Wikiscanner. Total non-notable beatup. Peter Ballard 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note

article has full protection requiring an admin to perform any edits please use {{editprotect}} for any requests. Also this has been notified at WP:AN/I diff so there should be relatively quick responses to issues. Gnangarra 01:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please change the protection notification on the article to reflect that the page is full protected, not merely semi-protected. Someguy1221 01:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Gnangarra 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I do not see how the info that some people from the government and/or liberal staffers anonymously edited the article should lead us to its full protection. Anonymous edits are already stopped by the semiprotection the article has due to the large volume of childish vandalism. On the other hand been PM Howard can any minute been involved in something notable worth to be inserted in the article. Due to the pre-election frenzy it is quite possible that something notable from the past would surface (both negative or positive). The article's referencing sucks we probably should improve it a lot. All those work require the article to be freely edited (at least by the established editors). Alex Bakharev 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What Alex says. This is stupid. In any event there is nothing to stop politically motivated edits being made from a non work computer. Blocking edits is a silly reaction Albatross2147 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This protection should be lifted. IP's (which are what the SMH article & Wikiscanner refer to) have been blocked by the semi-protection up to now. There is no evidence of substantial contributions by anyone with a COI, so the notice should go as well. Kevin 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've lifted it. Per above, IPs which are detected by the WikiScanner are already blocked by the slock. If any staffers edit with usernames then they can't be stopped anyway, unless the whole article is always locked, or they are somehow discovered by other means. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Any critical information deleted?

Having come to this page from WP:WQA, I can't figure out who are the good guys. I looked around for any information critical of John Howard that might have been deleted, and I only found the article about the copra plantations. Has anyone noticed any other well-sourced critical comments that might have been removed? From the above Talk I think the copra plantations were discussed, but I can't figure out the conclusion. If this page has arrived at a consensus, it must not be a very clear one.

I note that both User:Lester2 and User:Prester John have been blocked for 3RR violations here. To help newcomers to this page figure this out, does anyone recall what issues those were about?

Looking at "PM's staff edited Wikipedia" I didn't see mention of any edits to this article. EdJohnston 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which would concure with Wikiscanners own information. Shot info 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There's lots of vigorous discussion on this article! The copra plantations is just one, and is discussed above under #John Howard's secret ancestry revealed. And as I've said above (under #Protection, I think the Wikiscanners news reports are a beatup, as well as factually inaccurate. Peter Ballard 02:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That may be but its yet to be proven and we have an obligation to ensure that information presented is factual and unbias. If you read closer it appears as if a number of articles have been edited by his office not just this one. Gnangarra 02:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be OR without a RS to suggest that the subject of this article had the department make the changes. Per BLP it should not be included. In addition, Wikiscanner does show that the Dept. does edit wikipedia, probably just like many people from work. And the actually "political" articles are very limited. Not that the "news" story has presented it that way... Shot info 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They warning template does not claim anyone in particular has been making changing in violation of policy. However the SMH article provides reasonable suspicion (to the standards we use on wikipedia anyway) that there are COI issues, and hence that these need to be resolved before we can claim to be provided a neutral article to readers. Recurring dreams 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the SMH article is factual. I have provided a link to Wikiscanner (above) showing what it says. So either Wikiscanner has changed it's information or the SMH is incorrect. Simply by checking source information will tell us this. After all, it's not like the Australian media to be biased this close to an election....o no...never :-) Shot info 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While the article is protected it is a good time to reach some consensus on whatever unresolved editorial disputes we have had in the past. Please go ahead and start the discussions Alex Bakharev 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things have been deleted. semi-automatic handguns, Hawke race motion, Howard drinking after leadership spill, Costello contradicts Howard's threat to resign, AWB Scandal. The thing is, in every single one of those disputes, the facts were not in dispute. The disputes all hinged around whether it is relevant, or whether it was considered "anti-Howard" to include such information. Lester2 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiScanner can only measure IP edits. All the people who removed this stuff (including me) are logged in, so WIkiScanner can't pick us up. And no, I am not in a govt agency. So this is irrelevant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You can start the discussion now. One edit per trade, please Alex Bakharev 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've scanned through all the critical items mentioned in this thread, the one that has the strongest claim to be in the article is, in my view, the AWB scandal. The other criticisms seem to be correctly excluded as not relevant, or not important enough to deserve space. The AWB scandal had a large dollar value and it occurred under Howard's administration. A sentence or two on the topic might be sufficient. Regarding copra, there's no evidence that Howard's father made a lot of money from his copra go-between activities, so except for the disrepute it casts on the father, it doesn't seem to prove much. The issue is covered with the proper weight in Howard's father's own article. EdJohnston 04:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Costello's remarks add something. I don't really know about whether his father's business dealings should be described, but I certainly don't think the current description of his early life accurately reflects that included in the copra article. Hornplease 05:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Costello's statements don't appear to be backed up by anyone but himself, I'm still unclear on their significance. With regard to the current description of Howard's early life, I suppose Howard's line (that we quote in the article) "I was brought up in a home that sort of believed in the values of hard work and honesty and commitment to one’s country, and commitment to one’s community" could be questioned. The copra story suggests, not that they were wealthy, but that his father was a bit dishonest. So unless we know more about the actual values taught in his home, I don't know that we really need to quote Howard on that issue. Note that John Howard has apparently declined to comment on his father's go-between activities with regard to the copra plantations, so we can take points off for that, but I don't know how to phrase that in terms of WP policies. EdJohnston 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

apparent COI

According to her article is a writer for the Sydney Morning Herald has recently edited this article and her own article Margaret Packham Hargrave under MegHargrave (talk · contribs). Gnangarra 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of people who edit the John Howard article who have major affiliations with political parties. One has declared his interest, which is a good thing, but I believe the others haven't.Lester2 03:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not only unregistered users who are political operatives. Those ones are the easy ones to trace, as you can see their IP address. But I know of more than one registered user who regularly edits this page who is a past or present major player in a political party. The WP:COI pages indicate that not only those who are a member of the organisation who the article is about have a Conflict Of Interest. It's also members of other competing organisations who have a COI.

I call upon all those registered Wiki users who edit this page who are past / present members or party officials of the Liberal, Labor, Democrats, Greens, Family First and One Nation to speak up now and out themselves, before someone else does it for them. Lester2 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's no secret that I'm a Family First Party member, but I hold no office and I'm confident I've got no COI. Peter Ballard 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, P.B. It's good that you have always declared your affiliations. It's the other ones that I am thinking of, who haven't yet made it public. As a general grouping, I would have thought people with an affiliation to Liberal Party / Family First / One Nation, are more likely to lean to the right, and those in Labor / Democrats / Greens are more likely to lean to the left. Am I wrong? So, for example, someone who affiliates with One Nation is more likely to support the Liberal Party than support The Greens. Also, should ex high ranking party officials declare themselves? There are some of those here also. Lester2 10:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Shades of HUAC, methinks... Gareth E Kegg 13:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, they were found to be just making stuff up to attack people they didn't like. Lester2, I suggest that you keep your paranoid suspicions to yourself. Not everyone here is on the Prime Minister's personal staff, and in fact a lot of editors are happy to help you find your feet. --Pete 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Interest rates statement misleading

In the section about Mr Howard being Treasurer of Australia, it says:

As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a home lending rate peaking at 13.5% on 8 April 1982.[13][14].

Isn't this statement rather misleading and biased in favour of John Howard? Home loan rates were capped by law at 13.5%. General interest rates peaked at 22% on 8 April 1982. This can be seen in the RBA's historical data: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01Dhist.xls

To put in a statement that the "home lending rate" peaked on that day implies that the only importance of interest rates is for home mortgages. Of course that's not true. Huge amounts of money are borrowed and lent for a multitude of reasons every day. The interest rate affects all those borrowings.

It is also misleading, because "home lending rates" didn't "peak" on that day, since they were capped at 13.5% both before and after that day. In fact, it was the 90-day cash rate that peaked on 8 April 1982. It peaked at 22%.

Therefore, it is quite obvious that somebody has edited a previous correct statement about interest rates peaking on that day at 22%, and changed it to claim that home lending rates peaked at 13.5% on that day. Home lending rates did not peak at 13.5% on 8 April 1982, they stayed on the plateau formed by being capped at 13.5%. The 90-day cash rate peaked on 8 April 1982.

Was this one of the edits performed by the Office of the Prime Minister? Clearly whomever changed it to the current wording did so in order to bias the article in favour of John Howard.

The statement should be reworded so that it represents a neutral point of view. Here's what I'd suggest:

As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a period of high inflation, peaking at 12.5% in September 1982, and high interest rates, with the 90-day cash rate peaking at 22% on 8 April 1982. Home owners were partially protected from these high interest rates by mortgage rates being capped at 13.5%.

That is a neutral statement of fact about interest rates and inflation during that period. The current statement in the article is misleading, biased, and factually incorrect. It must be changed.

Inflation data: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/historical_cpi_data.xls Interest rate data: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01Dhist.xls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.88.104 (talk) 04:09, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

So you want Wikipedia to give the impression that when John Howard was Treasurer, Australians were paying 22% for their mortgages. Right. --Pete 04:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the revision seems quite accurate. I will be surprised if it is not included. Hornplease 04:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'd rather it said that the mortgage rate was capped at 13.5%, while the general interest rate was 22%. And I'd like it to have some facts in there about when John Howard was Treasurer. Currently it says "As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a home lending rate peaking at 13.5% on 8 April 1982." That's simply wrong. The home lending rate did not peak at 13.5% on that day, it was the same before that and after that. That's because the mortgage rates were capped. The 90-day cash rate peaked on that day at 22%. Don't you find it a little odd that the article claims that the home lending rate peaked on that day, when it didn't peak on that day? Don't you find it strange that there was a peak in interest rates on the day mentioned, but it wasn't the home lending rate? Isn't it anomolous that the article claims something that simply isn't true, and that the claim contains partial truth? Interest rates did peak on that day, but not the home lending rate.

Interest rates and the inflation rate are part of the job of the Treasurer. I'd expect a section about a Treasurer to have information about interest rates and inflation. I would not expect a half-factual manufactured statement like "John Howard presided over a home lending rate of...", as if the only job of a Treasurer is setting the interest rates for home mortgages.

I'd like the article to say that when John Howard was Treasurer, the inflation rate peaked at 12.5%, interest rates peaked at 22%, and the home mortgage rate was capped at 13.5%. These are basic economic facts, supported by evidence. They are neutral, which is what sort of thing should be in a Wikipedia article.

You apparently want the article to continue to say that "As Treasurer, John Howard presided over a home lending rate peaking at 13.5% on 8 April 1982". Doesn't that leave out vast amounts of information about the job of the Treasurer? Wouldn't it be interesting to know what the inflation rate was like? Wouldn't it be interesting to know if his Budgets were in surplus or deficit? Wouldn't it be interesting to know which interest rate did actually peak on 8 April 1982? Wouldn't it be better for the article to have the actual fact that the 90-day cash rate peaked on that day at 22%, rather than the manufactured, incorrect claim, that home lending rates peaked on that day?

If you wish to support the claim that the "home lending rate peaked at 13.5% on 8 April 1982", you should be able to provide evidence that the rate was lower before and after that date. Otherwise, it's not a peak. The 90-day cash interest rate peaked then, because on 7 April 1982 it was 21.88%; on 8 April it was 22%, and on 13 April 1982 it was 21.95%. See how it's higher on 8 April than the surrounding dates? That's a peak. The home lending rate was 13.5% before and after 8 April 1982, because it was capped. That's not a peak. The article is wrong.

220.253.88.104 05:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the claim "As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a home lending rate peaking at 13.5% on 8 April 1982.[13][14]" is apparently supported by two references. But these are both the same, and it's here:

http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/Bulletin/bu_apr99/bu_0499.pdf

This document does not support the claim that "home lending rates peaked at 13.5% on 8 April 1982", which I will henceforth call "the bogus claim" unless somebody can actually prove it. The document does not contain the figure "13.5%" anywhere I can find. It also does not contain the date "8 April", or "1982". I can only assume that the author of the bogus claim is referring to "Graph 1" in the document. If so, I don't think that is an acceptable reference for the bogus claim. If there's something I've missed in the document, please point it out to me. Thanks. 220.253.88.104 05:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do rewrite the paragraph to your satisfaction and we will try and include it. Hornplease 11:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks. I think this should be acceptable:

As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a period of high inflation, peaking at 12.5% in September 1982, and high interest rates, with the 90-day cash rate peaking at 22% on 8 April 1982. Home owners were partially protected from these high interest rates by mortgage rates being capped at 13.5%.

The figures of 12.5% inflation and 22% interest rates can be found in these RBA documents: Inflation data: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/historical_cpi_data.xls Interest rate data: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01Dhist.xls

The 13.50% figure for standard variable home loans can be found in this sheet: http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F05hist.xls

220.253.88.104 12:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kevin Rudd has made quite a point of it, so that we have citations to the Courier-Mail and the Australian on its political significance. An article that defends Howard, blaming it on sudden wage rises, is in the Age and written by its economics editor. Seems relevant enough. Hornplease 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If the anon editor above could register an account and use it, that would be helpful. Much of this article (and a great many others) is the result of continuous work and warfare by many editors over a long period. It reads choppy because that's the way it turned out. I don't think anyone meant to say that mortgage rates peaked on a particular day.

"The wording above seems fine, except for "As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a period of high inflation..." That seems a wee bit over the top. --Pete 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume that your mild objection is to the phrase "high inflation". Let's assume that the period December 1977 to March 1983 is the relevant period for John Howard being Treasurer. Please refer to the RBA's data on historical inflation rates (http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/historical_cpi_data.xls). These data show that in December 1977, the inflation rate was 9.3%, and 8.2% for the March 1978 quarter. Inflation then fell to 7.7% over the next three quarters to December 1978. 7.7% was the lowest inflation rate while John Howard was Treasurer. The inflation rate then rose to peak at 12.5% in September 1982. The average inflation rate for the period December 1977 to March 1983 was 9.7%.

The inflation rate was over 9% for 15 out of the 22 quarter-year CPI figures released in this period. It was over 10% for 10 out of the 22 quarters. Inflation was over 11% for 4 out of 22 quarters.

We can consider the RBA as a guide to whether inflation rates are high. The RBA's current job is described as keeping inflation low. Their target is to keep inflation below 4%. Therefore, we can assume that inflation below 4% is "low". When John Howard was Treasurer, inflation ranged between a minimum of 7.7%, and a maximum of 12.5%. The average value over the term of Howard being Treasurer was 9.7%.

If 4% inflation is "low inflation", then I think it's fair to call 9.7% inflation "high inflation". Since the minimum rate of inflation was almost double 4%, the average rate was almost 2.5 times 4%, and the maximum inflation rate in the period was over triple the accepted figure for "low inflation" of 4%, I think it'd be more accurate to say that "As Federal Treasurer, John Howard presided over a period of very high inflation." That way, we could use the phrase "high inflation" if inflation was in the 5-8% range.

I think a strong case could be made that an average rate of inflation of 9.7%, peaking at 12.5%, is very high inflation. Therefore, I don't agree that using the phrase "high inflation" to describe this period is "a wee bit over the top". I'd say that the phrase "high inflation" is reasonable to use as it is very difficult to argue against when one considers the historical inflation figures readily available from the RBA. If anything, the statement should be changed to "very high inflation". Similarly with the 22% interest rates, merely describing them as "high interest rates" is being quite generous to the feelings of Mr Howard. I think a more appropriate description would be "extremely high interest rates". However, I'm happy to compromise and put "high inflation rate" and "high interest rates" into the article in order to make it more palatable to a wider range of readers.

220.253.87.226 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pete wrote: "I don't think anyone meant to say that mortgage rates peaked on a particular day."

The article explicitly stated that home lending rates peaked on 8 April 1982. This piece of false information is now spread all over the web: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22john+howard+presided%22+%22home+lending+rate%22

Maybe you don't think anybody meant to say that mortgage rates peaked on that day, but the article has been saying it for months.

If I understand correctly, it was at 08:33, 31 January 2007 that 58.169.6.144 made this edit to the article that removed half of a correct statement and replaced it with a statement that is not true: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=104539680&oldid=104461816

You'll note that Editor 58.169... wrote as a reference for their statement, "(The 90 Day bank bill rate is often misquoted as the home lending rate. (The 90 day bank bill rate is the benchmark rate that major Australian banks and companies use if they lend or borrow money for period of 90 days)". Therefore it is clear that Editor 58 knows the difference between various interest rates, and knows that the general rate of interest is significant, since "major Australian banks and companies use" it.

Why then would Editor 58 have changed a correct, verifiable, supported statement about general interest rates, and replaced it with a manufactured statement about home lending rates? The original statement about interest rates did not purport to be about home lending rates. Therefore, Editor 58's objection was spurious.

By 09:01, 31 January 2007, Editor 58 had inserted a reference to support the mistaken claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Howard&diff=104542783&oldid=104461816

Here is the evidence used to support the claim: http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/Bulletin/bu_apr99/bu_0499.pdf

As you can see from the 09:01 edit, Editor 58 wishes people to believe that Graph 1 of that pdf is proof that home lending rates peaked at 13.5% on 8 April 1982. I encourage everybody to get that pdf, and closely examine Graph 1.

The y-axis scale of the graph is interest rates, in units of 3%, ranging from 4% to 22%. If somebody told me they'd read the value of 13.5% from that graph, I'd be dubious.

The x-axis scale of the graph is time. It ranges from 1960 to 2000, in units of 1 year. If somebody told me they could identify 8 April 1982 on that graph, I'd simply laugh at them. I'd probably not even believe the average person could find April 1982 on that graph, let alone one particular day. In fact, I have trouble even finding 1982 on the graph. It's really not a very good graph. The white year markers blend in too easily with the light blue background.

Why is this relevant? Because this Wikipedia article about the Prime Minister of the country has had a nonsense claim put into it over six months ago, and nobody challenged it. Apparently nobody bothered to check the reference supplied for the claim. Nobody looked at bu_0499.pdf to see if it contained the information that Editor 58 said it did.

Is it really that easy to get fake information into Wikipedia? Just make something up and post a link to a pdf, and nobody will check? Not even on a page which is of current interest with many editors camping on it claiming to be keeping it accurate? How many other references in the article haven't been checked? How many references don't support the claims made?

The ease of entering false information is even more significant with the current stories about governments editing Wikipedia. I find it quite disturbing, especially since so many people apparently believe what's on Wikipedia.

220.253.87.226 23:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You assume wrong. --Pete 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of describing it as anything, just present the facts. "During Howard's time as treasurer, inflation peaked at a rate of 12.5%", or something to that effect. Kewpid 01:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the Reserve Bank] reference removed in this edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lester2 (talk • contribs) 03:53, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you can always add the ref back in instead of whining about it. Fixed. --Pete 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Winston Churchill namesake

I think that the reference to Churchill as Howard's "namesake" should be removed. Whilst factually correct, I think it is an inappropriate attempt to make him appear more statesmanlike. Especially because of the myth about Howard being named after Churchill - he was born when Churchill was a backbencher and not yet prime minister. I'm not a long-time Wikipedia user so I didn't remove it myself - I just put it up for consideration. Kringle7 07 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

<trolling removed as per WP:BLP>. Albatross2147 06:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

trolling removed as per WP:BLP, talk page are fro discussion on improvements to the article not for personal commentary on the subject. Gnangarra 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a hangover from when the article said he was named after Churchill - which was removed because it couldn't be proved. So I agree, remove the phrase, it adds nothing. Peter Ballard 06:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is the point I was making when I wrote earlier <remove trolling> which to explicate for the obtuse among us is a lateral argument in support of the deletion of the phrase. Albatross2147 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have already been warned about talk page they are for commenting on the article content not the person. Gnangarra 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay - nobody seems to be against it, so I'll remove it. I expect it won't last long before somebody changes it back, but maybe we'll be surprised. Kringle7 07 02:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

erroneous and misleading paragraph re: Children Overboard Affair

The following paragraph, within the section 'The 2001 Election Campaign' should be deleted as innaccurate and misleading:

"The subsequent Senate inquiry later found that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm, and, in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, a child had been thrown overboard and rescued by another asylum seeker.[42]"

The source being cited here is an Appendix that forms part of a minority report by government members who disagreed with the main findings of the Senate Committee Report entitled 'A Certain Maritime Incident' (23 October 2002).

So the claims contained in the offending paragraph certainly do not represent the findings of 'the subsequent Senate inquiry', as the paragraph states. Rather, it represents a particular dissenting version of events asserted by government spin-merchants.

130.56.65.24 07:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, these are undisputed statements of fact, rather than "dissenting claims". The existing pattern of sabotage and self-harm is precisely what caused the government to claim that children had been thrown overboard - it wasn't something that was made up on the spot. --Pete 17:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record. Timeshift 07:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster. Detailed side-stories about the findings by a Senate Committee of other incidents on other ships at other times are irrelevant to the '2001 Election Campaign' section and the specific events relating to that period. If appropriate anywhere, it would be on the "Children Overboard affair" page, although the discussion page for that entry indicates its inclusion there is even disputed. --Bren 07:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC / Howard Government edits Wikipedia

Hi, I wonder why my subsection about the Internet (referral to broadband plans, myspace appearance and, not but not least, editing Wikipedia on taxpayers expense) is constantly removed. Removing a sourced section with not the slightest indication as to why looks to me like the whitewashing still continues. The fact that a government tries to manipulate information about out its own mistakes is well worth mentioning.

Lord Chao 07:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. What we need is some page protection to stop it being removed. How can they be so silly to remove controversy on their own? Timeshift 07:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a storm in a teacup, and not notable enough to go in the article IMHO. I think any new news except for obviously notable stuff (resignations, elections, deaths) should be quarantined for at least a week so we can all get some perspective. Peter Ballard 07:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

KR and stripergate was ages ago and affects nobody but himself and his personal life. This issue is far greater than a night 4 years ago in a US strip club. This is conflict of interest on wikipedia - how you level that to the same relevance as KR 4 years ago in a strip club is beyond me. Timeshift 07:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Howard Government is not the subject of this bio and article. Wikipedia has rules on what is allowed in BLPs. If you feel there is a COI, then I suggest you avail yourself of the appropriate channels and take it to COI/N. Shot info 09:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Peter Ballard on this one: not notable enough to include. Recurring dreams 09:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the third story on the BBC World Service news bulletin, and has an article [18], is this not notable? Gareth E Kegg 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

please review WP:BLP, it will answer your question. Shot info 10:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at WP:BLP, and have found nothing that would call to remove the material. The section is titled "Howard government" and deals with events and decisions of public importance during his government. BBC World, as well The Age are no sensationalist sources. Mr. Howard has most likely not really worked on the details of the IR laws, yet these are worth mentioning. I think it would be POV to attribute only positive things to the overview of the Howard government. Notably, the breaches of human rights while witchhunting terrorists is something yet underrepresented.Lord Chao 11:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As a regular contributor to WP, I've always been amused when it gets a mention in the popular press. They just don't get it!! "Anyone can log on and delete material" says the presenter in a dark and ominous tone. That's the entire concept of the thing!! It's not the slightest bit notable. Even if they did, why on earth should they not? "Anyone can edit" - it's on the front page!--Yeti Hunter 10:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Lord Chao said (in the section below), "What I think about this event is irrelevant. It happened during JH's time as PM, it has caused echoes in media worldwide and politics in Australia. We have sufficient space to hold even detailed accounts of ongoing developments.". The answer is simple: JWH has been in the news daily for the last 11 1/2 years. We do not have room to put every JWH news story in. We've actually got to be pretty brutal in cutting out the fluff stories - it's happened in the past and it'll happen in the future. Peter Ballard 13:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, in a democracy it is not common that public servants engage in such a way, that distinguishes it from fluff. The internet section was meant as a starting point expanding into the policies in this area regarding a) Broadband b) new media laws c) internet censorship/filtering. But there is no use even considering providing sourced information if vandals own this entry. --Lord Chao 14:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is any real relevance to John Howard, then we should include it. A broadband discussion, however, has no place here. Kick off a new article on the subject, run it up to FA status and get some brownie points.

Getting back to the subject of this section, The Canberra Times has an amusing editorial cartoon featuring this very article. --Pete 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Pete, The Herald Sun in Melbourne had a good one of Howard at his computer changing the article to read, "John Winston Howard born 26 July 1985, played cricket for Australia. Opened the bowling. Greatest Prime Minister ever. Kevin Rudd is a poo bum. " :) Sarah 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter Ballard's comments and I don't see any reason for this to be added to a biography. In the scope of John Howard's life, this is a very nn event. We have to be careful of slanting articles by giving undue weight to these kinds of news stories. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we're trying to write a neutral point of view article. Basically, for the same kinds of reasons we didn't add a section on the strip club story to Rudd's bio. Sarah 14:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)